Prem Kumar Jha @Phool Jha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37415 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-349 Year-2019 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== 1.
PREM KUMAR JHA @PHOOL JHA SON OF GAURI SHANKAR JHA RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 11, BARAIL, P.S. and DISTRICT - SUPAUL 2.
ROSHAN KUMAR JHA @ SINTU JHA SON OF GAURI SHANKAR JHA RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 11, BARAIL, P.S. and DISTRICT - SUPAUL 3.
GAURI SHANKAR JHA SON OF SHOBHA KANT JHA RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 11, BARAIL, P.S. and DISTRICT - SUPAUL ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 02-03-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to remove defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 349/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341/323/324/307/448/504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that due to land dispute, this occurrence has taken
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37415 of 2020(6) dt.02-03-2022 2/2 place and there is case and counter case between the parties. Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State after going through the case diary submits that one of the injured has received hip-bone injury which is grievous in nature and others have also sustained injury.
Considered the submissions of the parties.
Just because the petitioners have filed an F.I.R. one year back will not entitle them to assault the informant's side and cause grievous injury.
In view of the above, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Saif/- U T