Hari Shankar Paswan @ Mukesh Paswan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40914 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2025 Thana- Garahara District- Begusarai ====================================================== Hari Shankar Paswan @ Mukesh Paswan, S/O Satish Paswan, R/O Village/Mohalla- Rajwara, P.S- Garhara (Gadhara), Distt.- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-08-2025 Heard Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Gadhara P.S. Case No.01 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Sections 76, 127(1), 329(4), 118(1), 109 and 3(5) of B.N.S.
3. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner has given a knife blow in the stomach of daughter of the informant due to which she received bleeding injury.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is land dispute between the parties. Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. He is in judicial custody since 05.05.2025.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40914 of 2025(3) dt.20-08-2025 2/2
5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that from perusal of the injury report, it transpires that the daughter of the informant, namely, Priyanka Kumari has received a sharp, clean penetrating wound in paraumbilical area size 1" x 0.3" x 2" deep. The nature of injury is grievous.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.
7. However, petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after completing six months in incarceration. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) lata/- U T