Arvind Kumar @ Bechan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50002 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2020 Thana- KHAJAULI District- Madhubani ====================================================== ARVIND KUMAR @ BECHAN S/o MAHESHWAR YADAV R/o VILLAGE-WARD No. 11, BIRAUL, PS KHAJAULI, DISTRICTMADHUBANI. ... ... Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Kumari Shubham For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-06-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Khajauli P.S. Case No. 105 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354 (B), 379, 448, 380, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per allegation, the present petitioner along with seven named accused persons came to the house of the informant and asked her as to why they had built a house on the land belonging to them. The accused persons assaulted the informant and when her husband Ramlobhit Yadav came to rescue her, the petitioner inflicted garansa blow on his head and co-accused Lalu Kumar inflicted rod blow on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50002 of 2021(2) dt.20-06-2022 2/2 the head of the husband of the informant. He became badly injured and fell on the ground.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is land dispute between the parties. There is case and counter case and the members of petitioner side have also sustained injuries. There is specific allegation against the petitioner that he inflicted garansa blow on the head of the informant's husband and that injury was found grievous in nature.
In these circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T