Patna High CourtCR. MISC./245/2018rejected

Bikrama Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2018-01-15Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.245 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -202 Year- 2017 Thana -KARGHAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Bikrama Singh, Son of Late Sheo Dahin Singh.

2. Ramesh Singh, Son of Bikrama Singh, Both Resident of VillageSenhaur, Police Station- Karghar (Badahari O.P.), District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramchandra Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Murlidhar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 15-01-2018 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the informant, and the learned A.P. P. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Karghar (Badahari O.P.) P.S. case No. 202 of 2017 under Section 307, 326/34 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code. The informant named the petitioners and alleged that when he reached at his plot, Bikrama Singh, Shambhu Singh, Sunil Singh and Ramesh Singh and others caught the informant and began to assault him. The petitioner, Ramesh Singh, is alleged to have assaulted the informant with lathi on his head causing blood oozing injury. Bikrama Singh and others are also alleged to have assaulted the informant with Lathi. Sunil Singh assaulted the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.245 of 2018 (2) dt.15-01-2018 2/2 informant with spear on his leg.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is land dispute. The injury caused by the petitioners is simple in nature. One injury on leg, which is attributed to Sunil Singh, is opined to be grievous in nature.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

It appears that petitioners and others indiscriminately assaulted the informant and many injuries were found on the person of informant. One of the injuries on leg is opined to be grievous in nature.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T