Dhanjee Singh @ Amar Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.37714 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -41 Year- 2016 Thana -DIHRINAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================
1. Dhanjee Singh @ Amar Kumar Singh son of Ramashray Singh, resident of Village- Baran Bigha, P.S.- Darihat, District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Smt. Suman Kumari Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 28-11-2016 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the informant.
The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in Dehri (Dalmiyanagar) P.S. Case No. 41 of 2016, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307, 386, 379, 279, 337, 504, 338 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is alleged that the informant, who is in-charge of Makrain Sand Tractor Ghat, on 17.01.2016, along with his munshi were working there when all the accused persons including the petitioner arrived at different motorcycles and vehicles and all the accused persons demanded Rangdari in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- in order to continue their business at
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37714 of 2016 (3) dt.28-11-2016 2/2 Sand Ghat. Thereafter, it is alleged that co-accused Hari Kumar Singh assaulted the informant with iron rod whereas the petitioner assaulted with hockey stick causing injury to the informant.
The contention of the petitioner is that the injury was not sustained on the vital part and simple in nature. Due to animosity, the case has been lodged.
The counsel for the informant, on the other hand, points out the criminal background of the petitioner and the allegation attributed to him in the F.I.R.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to privilege the petitioner with anticipatory bail. Prayer is rejected.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) ajaypd./- U T