Lalu Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50532 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-613 Year-2020 Thana- MASHRAK District- Saran ====================================================== 1.

LALU SAHNI 2.

MUNNA SAHNI 3.

RAHUL SAHNI All are sons of Krishna Sahni Resident of Village - Lakhanpur, P.S.- Mashrak, Distt.- Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sarva Deo Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ramchandra Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-02-2022 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 through video conferencing.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Mashrak P.S. Case No. 613/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/302/341/323/ 324/307/447/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are said to have assaulted the deceased Bimla Devi and her family members causing various injuries due to land dispute. Bimla Devi sustained serious injuries

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50532 of 2021(2) dt.15-02-2022 2/2 causing her death.

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that one of the petitioners Lalu Sahni has registered a counter F.I.R. and both the parties had shot because of the land dispute and in this occurrence Lalu Sahni has also been injured. He further submits that there is general and omnibus allegations against the petitioners, therefore, they deserve anticipatory bail. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehementally opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioners are the assailants of the deceased and the injured and do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considered the submissions of the parties.

The allegations against the petitioners that they have assaulted the deceased and her family members which has resulted into the death of a lady and injury to others do not make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Saif/- U T