Patna High CourtCR. MISC./1359/2015dismissed

Ajit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2015-01-13Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1359 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -215 Year- 2014 Thana -RUPASPUR District- PATNA ====================================================== Ajit Kumar, Son of Sri Baiju Rai, Resident of Villge - Rupaspur, P.S. - Rupaspur, District - Patna.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Indeshwari Prasad Mandal, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Shankar Das (Spl.Pp) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 13-01-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Rupaspur P.S. Case No. 215 of 2014, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

The informant made allegation against the petitioner and others that they abused the informant in the name of his caste and also assaulted his son on account of which his son got injuries on his head.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that coaccused Ashok Choudhary has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail on the ground that he belongs to Scheduled Castes. There is omnibus and general allegation of abusing against the petitioner. No offence under SC/ST Act is made out.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1359 of 2015 (2) dt.13-01-2015 It appears that the petitioner is alleged to have abused the informant by naming his caste, while the informant and others going for disposal of idol of Goddess Durga. It is submitted that the independent witnesses have stated that the petitioner did not abuse the informant. There is very specific allegation in the FIR, that it was the petitioner who filthily abused the informant by naming his caste.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

However, the petitioner, if so advised, may surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail and his prayer shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T