Chhotu Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50860 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2021 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria ====================================================== CHHOTU DAS S/O LATE UDAYANAND DAS Resident of villageKushmoul, Ward No- 09, P.S.- Bhargama, District- Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kundan Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dashrath Mehta, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 12-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defects within four weeks.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for offence punishable u/s 341, 323, 324, 307, 498-A, 504, 34 of the IPC.

Allegedly, the petitioner abused the informant's family. Petitioner is said to have given spade blow to the informant's wife, which hit on her head.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. There is no allegation of any demand of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50860 of 2022(2) dt.12-12-2022 2/2 dowry. It is further stated that petitioner is residing separate from his mother and brothers and sister is got married. The alleged date of occurrence was Rakshabandhan day and wife of petitioner was willing to go to her Maika, but petitioner told her to call her brother as no will be there to look after the children. On that she became annoyed and started creating nuisance. She called her brother and mother, who came and started misbehaving and assaulting petitioner and petitioner in order to save himself pushed his brother-in-law, who accidentally fall on his mother and in turn she hit the wall. The injured Savitri Devi has received grievous injury whereas Saroj Tatma has received simple injury. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the injury is grievous in nature, I am not inclined to enlarge him on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T