Awadhesh Sah And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.26525 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -44 Year- 2016 Thana -MEERGANJ District- GOPALGANJ ======================================================
1. Awadhesh Sah son of Mahadeo Sah, resident of village- Basadila, P.S. Gopalganj Town, District- Gopalganj
2. Ramesh Sah, son of Late Gulab Sah, resident of Mil Road, Mirganj, P.S. Mirganj, District- Gopalganj .... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 01-07-2016 Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri( Dr.) Ajeet Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
Two petitioners, who were named accused in the F.I.R., have approached this Court with a prayer to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Mirganj P.S. Case No.44/2016 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 341, 323, 379, 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is case and counter case and in between the parties civil litigation is already going on. He further submits that in the F.I.R. there is allegation against the petitioners that they had assaulted the informant side with Farsa and Dab, but
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26525 of 2016 (2) dt.01-07-2016 2/2 the injury report does not corroborate the allegation. He by way of referring to Annexure-3 series submits that injuries were lacerated, which cannot be caused by such weapons. On this ground, a prayer has been made for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
In view of facts and circumstances, the Court is satisfied that there is specific accusation of participation in the occurrence against both the petitioners and, as such, I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U