Kunj Bihari Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11164 of 2017 Arising out of PS.Case No. -500 Year- 2016 Thana -JAHANABAD District- JEHANABAD ====================================================== Kunj Bihari Sharma, son of Gejendra Sharma, Resident of VillageKorauna, P.S.- Jahanabad (Korauna O.P.), Distt- Jahanabad. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 18-04-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 500 of 2016 registered for offences under Section 307 and other sections of the IPC.

Umesh Sao, the informant made a statement on 13.10.2016 that on 10.4.2016 while he was sleeping at his tea stall, the petitioner Kunj Bihari Sharma and Ganesh Sharma came and asked him to vacate the land. Petitioner Kunj Bihari Sharma caught the informant and co-accused Ganesh Sharma inflicted sickle blows. The informant got injuries on his nose and other parts of the body. They also snatched sale proceeds from the possession of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.11164 of 2017 (3) dt.18-04-2017 occurrence took place on 04.10.2016 but the informant made statement on 13.10.2016. There is no explanation for such delay. On perusal of requisition for treatment of the informant, it would appear that the Police got information about the occurrence on 05.10.2016 itself but the Police lodged the case on 13.10.2016. It creates doubt about the genunineness of the FIR and the fardbeyan of the informant. There is every possibility that the informant and the Police might have concealed the First Information Report about the occurrence. But from perusal of the record, it would appear that at about 2:30 A.M. in the night when the informant was sleeping at his tea stall, the petitioner caught the informant and Ganesh Sharma inflicted blows causing altogether five injuries on different parts of the person of the informant. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.Sb/- U T