Raghubir Ram @ Raghubir Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53644 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-137 Year-2019 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== RAGHUBIR RAM @ RAGHUBIR KUMAR Son of Suresh Ram Resident of village - Banua, P.S. - Minapur, Distt. - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ravi Ranjan, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-08-2023 Heard the parties.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Minapur PS Case No. 137/2019 dated 22.03.2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147/148/149/341/323/324/307/384 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per First Information Report, the petitioner inflicted knife blow in the stomach of the brother of the informant.
4. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.08.2019. However, the anticipatory bail application of co-accused was allowed by this Court coming to the conclusion that allegation against petitioner no.2 in that case was of firing in air. The petitioner after lapse of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53644 of 2023(2) dt.25-08-2023 2/2 about more than four years from the date of last rejection of his anticipatory bail application has filed second anticipatory bail application on the ground that on 01.04.2023, the parties have come to the amicable settlement.
5. From perusal of the FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is specific, that is of inflicting knife blow on the vital part of the body of informant's brother. As such, the compromise petition relied upon by the petitioner cannot be called as a subsequent event rather the Court has an impression that the petitioner intimidated and pressurized the informant taking advantage of the situation that after rejection of his anticipatory bail application he did not surrender for four years and has preferred a second anticipatory bail application.
6. Accordingly, I am not inclined to entertain the second anticipatory bail of the petitioner. The same is, hereby, dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U T