Patna High CourtCR. MISC./50968/2015rejected

Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Sao v. The State Of Bihar

2015-12-18Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50968 of 2015 (2) dt.18-12-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.50968 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -636 Year- 2014 Thana -GAYA KOTWALI District- GAYA ====================================================== Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Sao, Son of Sri Shiv Shanker Prasad @ Shanker Sao, R/o Mauriya Ghat, Riverside, Road, P.S. Kotwali, District - Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 18-12-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner is accused in connection with Kotwali P.S. Case No. 636 of 2014 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya. The accusation against the petitioner is to cause assault through hammer at the head of the deceased, Arun Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, Shiv Shankar Prasad @ Shankar Prasad and Mahabir Sao, father and uncle of the petitioner, entered into an agreement on 18.11.2013 with Anjnain Kumar Bharti, cousin of the deceased, for execution of sale deed in respect to 5 feet land as detailed in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50968 of 2015 (2) dt.18-12-2015 the F.I.R. and out of Rs. 10,00,000/- lac consideration amount, Rs.9,50,000/- was paid by the father and uncle of the petitioner but only to grebe the said money this false case has been lodged. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T