Sundar Sonar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46526 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2019 Thana- DELHA District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

SUNDAR SONAR Son of Suraj Sonar Resident of Village - Dhaniya, Bagicha, P.S.- Delha, Dist.- Gaya.

2.

Kundan Sonar Son of Suraj Sonar Resident of Village - Dhaniya, Bagicha, P.S.- Delha, Dist.- Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Deepak Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 20-11-2019 Heard both sides.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in Delha P.S. Case No.74 of 2019 registered under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 509, 308, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that the petitioners along with other accused persons surrounded her son Raja Babu and assaulted him with knife and bricks. When Santosh (another son of informant) and daughter Neha went to save Raja Babu, the accused persons also assaulted them and both petitioners snatched her clothes and teased her.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are close agnates of the informant. Petitioners have

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46526 of 2019(4) dt.20-11-2019 2/2 falsely been implicated in the case on account of dirty village politics. There is no specif allegation of assault against the petitioners, but it appears that there is no documentary evidence to show that the petitioners have got any enmity with the informant. The petitioners are alleged to have assaulted Raja Babu, who got cut injuries on upper lip and other parts of his body caused by hard and blunt object. Santosh also got injuries on different parts of his body and the opinion with regard to the nature of injury was reserved by the doctor and the doctor advised the injured for X-ray.

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

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