Tufan Rai @ Tufan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57588 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2022 Thana- BAIKUNTHPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Tufan Rai @ Tufan Yadav Son Of Jhagroo Rai Resident Of Village- Digwa Kachahri Tola, P.S.-Baikunthpur, District- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Indrajeet Bhushan For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 03-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 126 of 2022 for the offence registered under sections 341, 323, 147, 148, 324, 307, 379, 354, 447, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.
As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that all the accused persons armed variously and in drunken state assaulted the informant side. So far as petitioner is concerned, the allegation is against that he used sword blow causing injury to Usha Devi, according to the FIR. Learned cousenl for the petitioner submits that two injuries have been found on the persons of Usha Devi and one
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.57588 of 2022(2) dt.03-02-2023 2/2 of which is simple in nature. Further allegation is that there is a case and counter case between the parties in which some scuffle took place In this case informant is represented through his counsel and according to him of the two injuries Usha Devi sustained, one of them was found to be grievous in nature. Learned APP also opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
Considering the fact that one of the injuries have been found to be grievous in nature, it would be appropriate that the petitioner seeks bail in the matter. It is not a fit case for anticipatory bail, the same is rejected.
(Rajiv Roy, J) N.K/- U T