Om Prakash Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41247 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-170 Year-2022 Thana- KUSHESHWARASTHAN DistrictDarbhanga ====================================================== OM PRAKASH MUKHIYA SON OF SRI RAJ KUMAR MUKHIYA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- LAKSHMINIYA, PS- KUSHESHWAR ASTHAN, DISTT- DARBHANGA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Mrs. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, APP For the Informant : Mr. Saurav Barial, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 05-10-2023 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, learned A.P.P. for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Kushehwar Asthan (Tilkeshwar O.P.) P.S. Case No. 170 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302, 379, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioner in association of other co-accused is said to have assaulted the husband of the informant and others and they have also committed other offences in the manner as mentioned in the F.I.R.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41247 of 2023(4) dt.05-10-2023 2/2 such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case on account of enmity and political grudge. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature.

5. Learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the injury sustained by the victim has been found grievous in nature, hence the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T