Patna High CourtCR. MISC./50352/2021bail rejected

Kaletar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

2022-09-06Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50352 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-463 Year-2020 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.

KALETAR MANDAL Son of Late Hulas Mandal Resident of village - Chhatthu Dhanma, P.S.- Jamui, District - Jamui. 2.

Nitish Mandal @ Nitish Kumar Mandal Son of Kaletar Mandal Resident of village - Chhatthu Dhanma, P.S.- Jamui, District - Jamui. 3.

Vikash Mandal @ Vikash Kumar Mandal Son of Kaletar Mandal Resident of village - Chhatthu Dhanma, P.S.- Jamui, District - Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 06-09-2022 It appears that by order dated 20.06.2022, the anticipatory bail application as against petitioner no.1 stood dismissed as withdrawn.

Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Jamui P.S.Case No. 463 of 2020.

There is specific allegation on petitioner no.3 that he assaulted Devasri Devi, who suffered fracture injury on her hand. Specific allegation against petitioner no.2 is that he assaulted Jitendra Mandal on his head, who sustained grievous

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50352 of 2021(3) dt.06-09-2022 2/2 injury. Jitendra Mandal also suffered grievous injury on his head.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the parties are agnates. There is land dispute between the parties and both sides have sustained injuries. On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

The injuries specifically attributed against the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were found to be grievous in nature. In my view, it is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail on behalf of petitioner nos.2 and 3 is hereby rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T