Subham Kumar @ Raja @ Raj v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43849 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-336 Year-2023 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Subham Kumar @ Raja @ Raj S/O Pappu Singh R/O Village-Jalil Nagar,P.S.- Paroo,Distt-Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-08-2024 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection Paroo P.S. Case No. 336 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and informant alleges that petitioner assaulted by fersa repeatedly on his head causing injury as informant had complained to Excise Department officials that Raghav and Randhir were abusing him in a drunkard condition.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the course of investigation the independent witnesses

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43849 of 2024(3) dt.21-08-2024 2/2 were examined who have not disclosed that petitioner assaulted him by fersa, it is also submitted that since petitioner is related to Randhir and Raghav, he has been implicated in the instant case.

5.

The learned APP opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the injuries suffered by the injured is grievous in nature and the blow was repeated. It is next submitted that as far as investigation carried by the police is concerned, the same is to be tested in a duly constituted trial. 2.

Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U T