Jaduni Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33638 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2020 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.

JADUNI YADAV, S/o Late Bachhan Yadav Resident of Village-Kauaha Laxmipur, Police Station-Sirisiya (O.P.), District-West Champaran. 2.

Rajan Yadav @ Raj Haran Yadav S/o Jaduni Yadav Resident of VillageKauaha Laxmipur, Police Station-Sirisiya (O.P.), District-West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anant Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the informant :

Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Satyadeo Singh Yadav ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 28-06-2021 Heard Mr. Anant Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the informant. The State is represented by learned APP.

The petitioners, who are father and son amongst themselves, seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in connection with Cahnpatiya (Sirisiya O.P.) P. S. Case No. 112 of 2020, dated 18.03.2020, instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 307, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33638 of 2020(4) dt.28-06-2021 2/3 The petitioners are said to have assaulted the informant's husband by means of an iron rod on his head.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is a dispute between two brothers and precisely for this reason, the own brother of the informant who is the petitioner no. 1 and the nephew of the informant who is the petitioner no. 2, have been made accused in this case. He further submits that the copy of the diary, which he has, does not contain any injury report.

However, the learned counsel for the informant has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that from the impugned order, it can be gathered that because of the assault, the informant's husband had to undergo 30 stitches on his head before being referred to the PMCH for further treatment.

Considering the afore-stated nature of injuries suffered by the victim, I am not inclined to grant

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33638 of 2020(4) dt.28-06-2021 3/3 anticipatory bail to the petitioners notwithstanding the relationship between the parties and petitioner no. 2 being a person with different ability.

The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. However, if the petitioners surrender before the court below, the court below shall take into account the relationship between the parties, the circumstances of the case and the fact that one of the petitioners is a physically handicapped person and shall pass orders in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the fact that the present petition has not been entertained by this Court.

The application stands disposed off.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) skm/- U T