Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9237/2021rejected

Yushuf Ali v. The State Of Bihar

2022-02-03Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9237 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2020 Thana- THAWE District- Gopalganj ====================================================== YUSHUF ALI Son of Shekh Alisher @ Alisher Ali Resident of VillageBagha Saida (Jagmalwa), P.S.- Thawe, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Javed Aslam For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha Mr. Rajeev Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 03-02-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

Petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Thawe P.S. Case No. 107 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code to which section 302 I.P.C. was added later on.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity. There is no allegation of repeated blow, and as such, no offence section 302 or 307 I.P.C. is made out. Allegation of committing theft is super addition. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9237 of 2021(5) dt.03-02-2022 2/2 Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State being assisted by the learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioner is named accused in the first information report and there is specific allegation against him of assault by means of lathi on the head of the deceased which is supported by the injuries sustained. Petitioner, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T