Sri Kant Ojha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.24242 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -180 Year- 2016 Thana -SHIVSAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================
1. Sri Kant Ojha, S/o late Shiv Kumar Ojha, R/o Village- Badua, P.S.- Shivshagar, District- Rohtas.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashutosh Tripathy For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 14-07-2017 Heard both sides.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Shivsagar P.S. Case No. 180/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 325, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant alleged that while his father was repairing electric line somebody connected electric line and his father got current and fell down from the pole. Sri Bhagwan Singh came there and said that the act of the villagers is illegal. On such, the petitioner and others came there. Sri Kant Ojha, the petitioner assaulted Sri Bhagwan Singh on his head and Sri Bhagwan Singh fell down becoming unconscious. Other accused persons assaulted
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24242 of 2017 (3) dt.14-07-2017 2/2 with different articles.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a counter version being Shivshagar P.S. Case No. 181/2016. Sri Krishna Ojha and others were injured on account of assault made by the informant and others. It is further submitted that the injured did not lodge the F.I.R. on the same day, but from perusal of the Case Diary it appears that there is specific allegation that the petitioner assaulted Sri Bhagwan Singh on his head and the doctor found injury on his head, which is grievous in nature. Considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Rakhi U T