Tej Pratap @ Dollor @ Tej Pratap Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41704 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-208 Year-2024 Thana- RUPASPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Tej Pratap @ Dollor @ Tej Pratap Yadav SON OF SHREE SANJAY RAY VILLAGE- RUPASPUR, PS- RUPASPUR, DIST- PATNA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Y.C. Verma, Sr. Adv Ms.Priyanka Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Kumar Veerendra Narayan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-09-2024 1.

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Shri. Yogesh Chandra Verma and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Rupaspur PS Case No. 208 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 448, 325, 307, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of three cases, but then he was given the privilege of Section 41A of the Cr.PC in all those three cases, which amply demonstrates that the offences for which the aforesaid three FIRs were instituted, carried punishment of 7 years and less. It is next submitted that in the instant FIR, though the petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the injured by

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41704 of 2024(4) dt.03-09-2024 2/2 knife, but then the injury was caused by a hard and blunt substance, which belies the allegation of assault by knife. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not alleged to be the assailant of the deceased.

4.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the OP No. 2 submits that though the petitioner may not be the assailant of the deceased, but then he is alleged to have assaulted the son of the informant by knife causing injury on the nose, and the injury suffered by the injured is a cut injury. It is also submitted that the presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence emboldened the accused who assaulted the deceased. 5.

At this stage, learned senior counsel for the petitioner realising his difficulty seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application.

6.

Permission is accorded.

7.

Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed as withdrawn.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U T