Patna High CourtCR. MISC./38413/2019dismissed

Md. Rajjak v. The State Of Bihar

2019-09-13Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38413 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-33 Year-2019 Thana- TRIVENIGANJ District- Supaul ====================================================== MD. RAJJAK Son of Late Md. Sultan Resident of Village - Karharwa, Ward No. 10, P.S.- Tribeniganj, District - Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nafisuzzoha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 13-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 341, 323, 427, 448, 379, 307, 354B, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Tribeniganj P.S. Case No. 33/2019.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and there is no delay in lodging the FIR on 30.01.2019 for the alleged occurrence on 28.01.2019. The petitioner's side has also filed an FIR as counter case on 09.02.2019. It is submitted that there is land dispute between the parties, who are close agnates. The petitioner is said to have assaulted the informant's son, Md. Jiyaul, on the head with Dabiya which is not corroborated from the injury report which shows injury on the head caused by hard and blunt substance in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38413 of 2019(3) dt.13-09-2019 2/2 respect of which final opinion has been kept reserved. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

4. The learned APP on the other hand refers to para-26 of the case diary containing the injury report of the informant's son Md. Jiyaul which discloses that there is hair line fracture on the right side of the perital bone. It is therefore submitted that serious injury has been sustained by the informant's son on the head which is a vital part of the body and such injury is attributed to the petitioner.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and the gravity of the offence alleged, this court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) Prakash Narayan /- U T