Ghuran Sahni And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34209 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -581 Year- 2015 Thana -DARBHANGA SADAR DistrictDARBHANGA ======================================================

1. Ghuran Sahni, son of Late Hibu Sahni

2. Mukesh Sahni, son of Ghuran Sahni, Both resident of Village Andhari P.S. Sadar (Bhalpatti O.P.), District- Darbhanga. ... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Bali Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shyam Bihari Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 31-08-2016 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Sadar P.S. Case No. 581 of 2015, registered under Sections 323, 324, 341, 307, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga. The accusation is that due to land dispute, seven persons named in the F.I.R., including the petitioners, came near the house of the informant, where petitioner No. 1Ghuran Sahni caused injury through iron rod at the head of the Lalit Sahni, brother of the informant, whereas petitioner No.2 Mukesh Sahni caused injury to the head of the informant.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34209 of 2016 (3) dt.31-08-2016 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that occurrence took place due to land dispute and defence side also sustained injury regarding which Complaint Case No. 2045 of 2015 was instituted against informant and others in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga on 16.12.2015. Further submission is that admittedly the occurrence took place due to land dispute and the injury as found on the person of the informant is not grievous in nature.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the trail Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail would be considered by the trial Court taking into consideration the nature of the allegation and the nature of injury without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) manish/- U T