← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./47544/2019bail rejected

Dhirendra Mishra @ Dhirendra Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar

2019-11-27Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47544 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-940 Year-2018 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE District- Araria ====================================================== Dhirendra Mishra @ Dhirendra Kumar Mishra, Son of Late Surya Ballabh Mishra, Resident of Village- Raghunathpur South Ward No. 01, P.S.- Bhargama, District- Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Kunti Devi, Wife of Vikash Yadav, Resident of Village- Raghunathpur Sourth Ward No. 02, P.S.- Bhargama, District- Araria. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Harendra Prasad, APP For the Complainant :

Mr. Kundan Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 27-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant as well as the learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.940-C of 2018, in which cognizance has been taken under Sections 323, 354, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which is pending in the court of Sri S.K. Sharma, learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Araria. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a case and counter case between the parties with similar allegation on both sides.

However, after perusal of the complaint petitions

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47544 of 2019(4) dt.27-11-2019 2/2 filed by both the parties, it appears that there is specific allegation against the petitioner and the deposition of one of the witnesses also testifies to the same effect.

In view of such facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected.

(Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U T