Ghanti Saw @ Manish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52977 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-235 Year-2021 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui ====================================================== GHANTI SAW @ MANISH KUMAR SON OF ANIL SAW R/O VILLAGEMAHISHOURI, P.S.- JAMUI, DISTRICT- JAMUI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Harsh Vardhan, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ravindra Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ravindra Kumar learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, learned counsel for the informant.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Jamui P.S. Case No. 235 of 2021 instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 379, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.06.2021 and have antecedent of five cases as stated in the supplementary affidavit, charge-sheet has been submitted in the case and the informant alleges that his son was assaulted by the petitioner on the head by means of iron rod while other named accused persons also assaulted the victim

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52977 of 2021(3) dt.07-03-2022 2/2 by iron rod and Bikku snatched wrist watch and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- while Sundar Rawat snatched mobile set and Vikash Paswan took his Adhar-card.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The allegation in the First Information Report is that other named accused persons also assaulted the victim by iron rod. Learned counsel for the Informant opposes the bail application and submits that the petitioner has antecedent of five cases and there is direct allegation against him of assaulting the son of the informant on the head causing six injuries out of which injury nos. 1, 2 & 3 are grievous in nature. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State, the Court for the present is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Jagdish/- U T