Prem Chand Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46708 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-406 Year-2023 Thana- ARARIA District- Araria ====================================================== PREM CHAND THAKUR S/O LATE BALDEO THAKUR R/O VillageDhakia Ward no. 11, P.S and Distt.- Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Rana For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Araria P.S. Case No. 406/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 323, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, petitioner is said to have assaulted the informant by means of sword who hit informant on head and hand and he sustained injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner bears no criminal antecedent. He further submits that both parties are Gotia and there is land dispute between them.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46708 of 2023(2) dt.04-08-2023 2/2 There is allegation against the petitioner that he assaulted the informant by means of sword on his head and hand but as per injury report, injury on left eyebrow is grievous in nature and injury on his arm is simple in nature and both the injuries are caused by hard and blunt substance.

5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is specific allegation of assault against the petitioner and the same is supported and corroborated by the injury report which is evident from impugned order itself.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner and the same is supported and corroborated by the injury report, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) amitkumar/- U T