Patna High CourtCR. MISC./51509/2021dismissed

Raj Mangal Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

2022-02-16Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51509 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2021 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== RAJ MANGAL PRASAD S/o Bhukhal Bhagat R/o village- Sidhwaliya, P.S.- Rajepur, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Atul Shankar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narsingh Tanti, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 16-02-2022 Heard the parties through video conferencing. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Rajepur P.S. Case No. 51 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 302, 307, 326, 504, 506, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a politician and his name has been included on account of village rivalry.

Learned counsel further submits that the F.I.R. was registered by an eye witness and she does not mentioned the name of the petitioner. However, the petitioner is being sought to be arrested.

I have considered the submissions, from perusal of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51509 of 2021(2) dt.16-02-2022 2/2 order passed by the learned trial court, it appears that the statement of other injured witnesses was recorded, who names the petitioner as stated that the petitioner was also involved as one of the assailant and a petition was also filed by the husband of the informant about the involvement of the petitioner in the case.

Taking into consideration the aspects as above wherein injured names the petitioner to have caused the injuries and it is a case where one of the person has been murdered, I am not inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the above named petitioner.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) pravinkumar/- U T