Umesh Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40915 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2020 Thana- RAJEPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== UMESH RAI, aged about 40 years (M), son of Late Ramrup Rai, resident of Village- Madhuaha, P.S/ Rajepur, Distt. East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Adv.

Mr. Sharad Kr. Verma, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 12-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of regular bail in connection with Rajepur P.S. Case no. 14 of 2020 registered under sections 307, 341, 323, 324, 379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation in the FIR, the petitioner is stated to have abused and, thereafter, given a knife blow on the informant, as a result of which he sustained injury in his hand. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations as levelled in the FIR are false and concocted. From the injury report of the informant, which is Annexure-2 to the petition, it appears that the same do not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40915 of 2020(3) dt.12-03-2021 2/2 support the allegations as levelled in the FIR in so far as there is no injury in the hand of the informant. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent. He is in custody since 3.9.2020. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, it transpires that the allegation against the petitioner is of giving knife blow on the informant, which is supported by the injury report, wherein a sharp cut injury has been found on the head of the informant, which in the opinion of the doctor, is grievous in nature. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the same is rejected.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after completing one year in custody.

(Partha Sarthy, J) sushma/- U