Raj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45811 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2024 Thana- KIUL District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Raj Kumar S/o Manilal Yadav R/o Singhchak, P.S. - Kiul, Distt. - Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 24-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Kiul P.S. Case No. 09 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 354B, 504 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai.

3. The petitioner in association of other co-accused is said to have abused and assaulted the informant and her family members. They also tried to outrage the modesty of the informant.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45811 of 2024(2) dt.24-07-2024 2/2 petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that the present case is counter blast of Kiul P.S. Case No.08 of 2024. It is further submitted that there was a free fight between both the parties in which both sides have sustained injuries. It is further submitted that on the intervention of well wishers of both parties the matter has been compromised. The petitioner has one criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the son of the informant has sustained grievous injury, hence, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the nature of the injury, 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