Ramesh Prasad @ Ramesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38337 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2019 Thana- KHANPURA District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.

Ramesh Prasad @ Ramesh Kumar, aged about 40 years, Sex-Male, Son of Sri Maya Dev Mahto 2.

Om Prakash aged about 35 years, Sex-Male, Son of Sri Maya Dev Mahto 3.

Hari Chandra Mahto @ Harichandra Mahto @ Harichandra Prasad aged about 50 years, Sex-Male, Son of Late Sita Ram Mahto 4.

Pankaj Kumar aged about 32 years, Sex-Male, Son of Sri Maya Dev Mahto, All are resident of Village-Chakka (Hariyavad Chak), P.S.- Khanpur, District - Samastipur.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners :

Mr.Manish Kumar No 13, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr.Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 27-06-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 341, 379 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Khanpur P.S. Case No. 04 of 2019.

3. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and the accusations of assault are general and omnibus in nature. It is submitted that most of the injuries are simple in nature, except certain injuries sustained by Maheshwar Mahto, Shashi Bhusan Prasad and Bhulli Devi which are said to be grievous but on non-vital part of their bodies. Other accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 28.05.2019 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34532 of 2019. The petitioners claim clean antecedents.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38337 of 2019(2) dt.27-06-2019 2/2

4. Having regard to the nature of accusations and gravity of offence alleged as well as injury reports disclosing grievous injuries sustained by three persons, I am not persuaded to take the similar view as in the case of other accused persons, who have been granted anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) BT/- U T