Patna High CourtCR. MISC./46916/2016rejected

Shambhu Rai @ Shambhu Kumar Rai And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2017-01-13Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46916 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -111 Year- 2016 Thana -BHANGWANPUR HAT District- SIWAN ======================================================

1. Shambhu Rai @ Shambhu Kumar Rai, S/o Kailash Rai

2. Dharamnath Rai S/o Kailash Rai

3. Ramayan Rai S/o Ram Charan Rai.

4. Dudh Nath Rai, S/o Late Giran Rai.

5. Pappu Rai alias Pappu Kumar Rai, S/o Dharam Nath Rai All are resident of Village- Sandhani Mananpatti P.S. Bhagwanpur, Distt.- Siwan. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Nityanand, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 13-01-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Bhagwanpur Hat P.S. Case No. 111 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Section 307 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant named the petitioners and alleged that Jainath Rai repeatedly assaulted his brother Shailesh Tiwary with Pharsa on his head and other parts of the body. The petitioners are also alleged to have assaulted the informant and his father Bharat Tiwary.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46916 of 2016 (3) dt.13-01-2017 2/2 a counter version. From side of the petitioners many persons got injuries but it appears from perusal of the injury report that the petitioners are alleged to have assaulted Shailesh Tiwary and Bharat Tiwary. Shailesh Tiwary received as many as six injuries on different parts of his body. Similarly Bharat Tiwary also received six injuries on different parts of his body but no injury report of the petitioners' is annexed with the bail petition. Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that the petitioners indiscriminately assaulted the informant and his father, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T