Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48444/2024bail rejected

Md. Saheb v. The State Of Bihar

2024-08-14Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48444 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-606 Year-2020 Thana- KORHA District- Katihar ====================================================== 1.

MD. SAHEB SON OF MD. HABIB R/O- GERABARI BASTI, P.S.- KORHA, DISTT.- KATIHAR 2.

MD. AIJUL @ AIJUL SON OF MD. HABIB R/O- GERABARI BASTI, P.S.- KORHA, DISTT.- KATIHAR 3.

MD. ALLA RAKHA @ MD. ALLAH RAKHA SON OF LATE MD. LALU R/O- GERABARI BASTI, P.S.- KORHA, DISTT.- KATIHAR 4.

MD. HABIB SON OF LATE GHOGHAY MIAN R/O- GERABARI BASTI, P.S.- KORHA, DISTT.- KATIHAR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 14-08-2024 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Korha P.S. Case No. 606 of 2020 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the I.P.C. lodged on 24.12.2020 by the informant, Md. Suleman.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that the accused persons wanted the papers of the land and upon refusal, allegation is that Md. Saheb gave iron chain blow on the head of the informant causing injury. When the other family members came to the rescue, the petitioners Md. Aijul and Md.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48444 of 2024(2) dt.14-08-2024 2/2 Saheb again gave iron rod blows as the sister-in-law came to the rescue, the lady accused gave her 'lathi' blow on the hand. Accordingly, the FIR.

4. Though, learned counsel for the petitioners tried to impress upon this Court that the injuries have not been found to be grievous in nature, learned APP Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh submits that they have been named in the FIR, role assigned and still they took four years to come before this Court.

5. Taking into account the allegations that has come against the petitioners and the delay they have made in approaching the Court, no relief of anticipatory bail can be extended to them.

6. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T