Vakeel Yadav @ Vakeel Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1711 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-290 Year-2020 Thana- JHAJHA District- Jamui ====================================================== Vakeel Yadav @ Vakeel Kumar, Son of Late Rohan Yadav, Resident of Village - Sahiya, P.S. - Jhajha, District - Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prakash Mahto, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 07-09-2021 As prayed for, let the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within four weeks of starting of the Court proceeding in physical mode in normal course.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State through Video Conferencing. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Jhajha P.S. Case No. 290 of 2020, registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajha.

The accusation is that quarrel was going on in between Parwati Devi, wife of the informant, Rajendra Yadav and wife of his brother, Vakeel Yadav. At that time, his brother, Vakeel Yadav having Fasi in his hand came there and assaulted him through Fasi causing

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1711 of 2021(3) dt.07-09-2021 2/2 injury at his head and three unknown, who also present there, started to cause injury to him and his wife through lathi. When his sons, Tuntun Yadav and Dinesh Yadv came to save then they were also assaulted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the injury, as found on the person of wife of the informant, is of simple in nature whereas three injuries as found on the person of the informant, Rajendra Yadav and out of three injuries, injury nos. 2 and 3 are simple in nature and injury no.1, which is cut on parietal region, opinion has been kept reserved. Further submission is that petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

Bhardwaj/- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) U T