Raju Tanti v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43016 of 2017 (3) dt.09-11-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43016 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -10 Year- 2016 Thana -ANTICHAK District- BHAGALPUR ======================================================

1. Raju Tanti Son of Late Dhuri Tanti, resident of Village- Parshuram Chak, P.S. Antichak, District- Bhagalpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Davendra Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Akhileshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 09-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Antichak P.S. Case No. 10 of 2016 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 326-A, 379, 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case, as lodged by the complainant bearing Complaint Case No. CC 209 of 2016 which was later on referred to the local police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., is that the petitioner along with others came and demanded Rangdari on pistol point and the petitioner threw acid on one Subodh Yadav and Chanda Devi in which both were seriously injured. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent, bears no criminal antecedent. The present case is a counter blast to the case lodged by the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43016 of 2017 (3) dt.09-11-2017 side, bearing Antichak P.S. Case No. 01 of 2016, wherein the allegation of throwing acid is on the informant side of the same date and occurrence. He submits that in fact, acid was thrown by the informant side and the petitioner has falsely been implicated. He further submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted and he is languishing in judicial custody since 08.05.2017. However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail stating therein that injured Subodh Yadav has been referred to the higher center as he has suffered visual impairment. Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, I am not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner and accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected in connection with Antichak P.S. Case No. 10 of 2016 pending before learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, XIV, Bhagalpur.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Nilu Agrawal, J) sushma/- U t