Lav Kumar Singh @ Love Kumar Singh @ Lav Singh @ Lav Kumar @ Lav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40334 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-76 Year-2020 Thana- MAGADH MEDICAL COLLEGE District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

LAV KUMAR SINGH @ LOVE KUMAR SINGH @ LAV SINGH @ LAV KUMAR @ LAV (aged about 35 years, Gender-Male), son of Ramji Singh @ Ramjee Singh.

2.

Saket Singh @ Saket Kumar Singh @ Saket (aged about 42 years, GenderMale), son of Lallan Singh @ Lalan Singh. Both are resident of Village- Dhansir, P.S.- Magadh Medical, District- Gaya. At present resident at Dhansir Kothi, Tilha, Mahavir Asthan, Gaya, P.S.- Civil Lines, District- Gaya.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Nityanand Tiwary, APP for the Informant :

Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Advocate Ms. Sripriya Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 27-10-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Magadh Medical P.S. Case No. 76 of 2020 registered for the offence under Sections 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 308, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Due to land dispute, both the parties have assaulted each other. The petitioners are said to have assaulted the informant on his head causing head injury, which was sent for C.T. Scan also.

The defence of the petitioners is that the incident

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40334 of 2020(2) dt.27-10-2021 2/2 has occurred because of land dispute and a title suit is pending between the parties.

Mere pendency of the title suit will not entitle to parties to assault each other. The parties should have tried to get their title suit decided or should have got some injunction order or any other interim order with regard to the land dispute. In my opinion, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) pawan/- U T