Patna High CourtCR. MISC./58986/2024bail rejected

Shiv Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2025-01-24Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58986 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2024 Thana- RANIYATALAB District- Patna ====================================================== Shiv Kumar Yadav Son of Krishna Yadav R/O Vill.- Jitan Chhapra, P.S.- Rani Talab, Dist.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P., Chandra Bhushan Prasad for the State and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Rani Talab, P.S. Case No. 72 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 354(B), 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of one case and is alleged to have assaulted the son of the informant by farsa causing injury on head and other accused persons are also alleged to have assaulted other injured, as detailed in the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the informant submits that there is a specific allegation against this petitioner of assaulting

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58986 of 2024(3) dt.24-01-2025 2/2 the son of the informant by means of farsa on head causing injury. It is also submitted that the doctor on examining the injury, have opined the injury to be grievous. It is next submitted that head is the vital party of the body and the injury inflicted on account of assault is opined to be grievous. As such, the petitioner does not deserve bail.

5.Learned A.P.P. for the State also opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that head is a vital part of the body and the injury has been opined is grievous.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

(Satyavrat Verma, J.) Jyoti Kumari/- U T