Arjun Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 39149 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -19 Year- 2016 Thana -SIWAN MUFFASIL District- SIWAN ====================================================== Arjun Yadav son of Madan Yadav Resident of Village-Paigambarpur, P.S.- Mufasil, Distict-Siwan .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Chandra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

21-09-2016 Heard Sri Anil Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

The sole petitioner, apprehending his arrest in Mufassil P.S. Case No. 19 of 2016 registered for offence under Sections 279, 337, 341, 323, 307, 324, 379, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in a road accident, the informant had received injury, while petitioner was driving a vehicle and thereafter, informant side arrived at the resident of the petitioner and tried to assault, in which, from both the sides, occurrence has taken place and injuries were received from both the sides. He further submits that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39149 of 2016 (2) dt.21-09-2016 2/2 it is true that during pendency of this case, the informant of the present case died, but fact remains that an application of Investigating Officer for adding 304 of the Indian Penal Code in the F.I.R. was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan, vide order dated 14-06-2016. On aforesaid ground, a prayer has been made to grant anticipatory bail. Sri Anil Kumar Singh, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, while opposing the prayer, submits that while rejecting the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge, Siwan had noticed that number of injuries were found on the person of the informant side, ofcourse, the injuries were found simple in nature, but at least, two injuries were found on vital portion.

In view of facts & circumstances and nature of accusation, I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T