Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48625/2017rejected

Shyam Jha @ Ghanshyam Jha v. The State Of Bihar

2017-11-23Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48625 of 2017 (3) dt.23-11-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48625 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -177 Year- 2017 Thana -BAJPATTI District- SITAMARHI ======================================================

1. Shyam Jha @ Ghanshyam Jha, S/o Late Shukhdeo Jha, Resident of Village- Boha Vasudevapur, P.S.- Bajpatti, District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ S.K., Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Rajendra Nath Jha, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 23-11-2017 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Bajpatti Police Station Case No. 177 of 2017, disclosing offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 448, 354, 380, 427, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. In fact, the petitioner happens to be retired Government employee having age of 66 years has falsely been implicated in this case. According to the investigation, the specific allegation is levelled against co-accused, Ranji Jha, who happens to be nephew of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48625 of 2017 (3) dt.23-11-2017 deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner and submitted that there is direction allegation of assault by means of knife causing injury to the informant against the petitioner. Moreover, the witnesses have also supported the prosecution version, which is evident from paragraph nos.6, 7, 13 and 14 of the case diary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of this petitioner is rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T