Birbal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.47339 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -12 Year- 2018 Thana -BAGAINGOLA District- BUXAR ====================================================== Birbal Yadav S/o Mahendra Singh Resident of Village - Barahi Tola Chhapra, P.S. - Bagen Gola, District Buxar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Bharat Lal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 08-10-2018 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Bagen Gola PS case no. 12 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 379, 307/34 of Indian Penal Code.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein and others had assaulted the injured persons including the informant and as far as the petitioner is concerned, he is said to have assaulted one Hridyanand Singh with iron rod resulting in grievous injury to him.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR has been lodged after 05 days of the incident, hence

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47339 of 2018 (3) dt.08-10-2018 2/2 there is no truth in the prosecution story. It is further submitted that the petitioner is having a clean antecedent. Per contra, the learned APP for the State has submitted that Hridyanand Singh has received grievous injury as has been certified by the Medical Officer, P.H.C., hence no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein and at best, the present case can be said to be a case of grant of regular bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the materials on record including the materials available in the case diary and the opinion of the doctor, this Court finds that the present case is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) rinkee/- U T