Rajani Singh@Ranjan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42844 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-689 Year-2021 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran ====================================================== 1.
Rajani Singh@Ranjan Kumar Son of Punit Singh Resident of Village - Kasina , P.s.- Garkha, Distt.- Saran.
2.
Ravi Rai @ Ravi Ranjan Kumar Son of Shivji Rai Resident of Village - Kasina , P.s.- Garkha, Distt.- Saran.
3.
Ranvir Rai @ Ranvir Kumar Son of Virendra Rai Resident of Village - Kasina , P.s.- Garkha, Distt.- Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ghanshyam Tiwary For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-12-2022 Heard both parties.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Garkha P.S. Case No. 689 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code.
Prosecution case in brief is that on 08.10.2021 at 11.30 while the informant was sitting at his door, all the accused persons including petitioners came, abused and assaulted the informant and his sons. It is further alleged that co-accused Ranvir Rai took out country made pistol from his waist and caused injury on lip and nose by butt of the pistol, as a result of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42844 of 2022(2) dt.01-12-2022 2/2 which he fell down on the ground, thereafter petitioners along with others assaulted him by iron rod.
It is submitted that due to election dispute between the parties scuffle took place in which both sides sustained injuries. There is case and counter case.
Counsel for State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioners caused grievous injury to the informant.
Considering the facts aforesaid and nature of injury, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T