Shivjee Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41856 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-135 Year-2019 Thana- BARAULI District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1.

SHIVJEE SAH Son of Late Satan Sah Resident of Village- Salona, P.S.- Barauli, District- Gopalganj.

2.

Paras Sah Son of Late Satan Sah Resident of Village- Salona, P.S.- Barauli, District- Gopalganj.

3.

Krishna Sah Son of Shivjee Sah Resident of Village- Salona, P.S.- Barauli, District- Gopalganj.

4.

Praduman Sah Son of Krishna Sah Resident of Village- Salona, P.S.- Barauli, District- Gopalganj.

5.

Manish Sah Son of Paras Sah Resident of Village- Salona, P.S.- Barauli, District- Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dhramveer For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mohammad Sufyan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 27-09-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Barauli P.S.Case no.135 of 2019 registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,307, 379, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the FIR the petitioner no.3 gave farsa blow to the informant causing injury and so far other petitioners are concerned, there is no specific allegation though they have also assaulted.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is case and counter case between the parties and except the petitioner no.3 the allegation against the other

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41856 of 2019(3) dt.27-09-2019 2/2 accused persons is general and omnibus of assault by lathi and rod whereas the allegation against the petitioner no.3 is of assault by Farsa .

Heard learned A.P.P. , who has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that three injuries were found on the person of one injured Umesh Sah and the opinion about the same was kept reserved.

Having heard both sides and considering the above facts so far the petitioner no.3 (Krishna Sah) is concerned, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to him, as such the provisional bail granted to him, vide order dated 9.7.2019 is recalled.

So far other petitioners (petitioner nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5) are concerned, the provisional bail granted to them, vide order dated 9.7.2019 is confirmed.

Accordingly, this application is disposed of with above direction.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U T