Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29853/2017dismissed

Omprakash Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2017-10-18Mr. Justice Sanjay Priya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29853 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -116 Year- 2017 Thana -MARHAURA District- SARAN ======================================================

1. Omprakash Singh,

2. Sonu Kumar @ Sono Singh, both are sons of late Rajeshwar Singh, resident of village Audal Patti, Police Station- Marhaurah (Gaura O.P.), District- Saran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Roy, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, APP For the Informant : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 3/ 18-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State as well as counsel for the Informant. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in Marhowrah (Gaura) P.S. Case No.116 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of the Sub Judge, 2nd Saran. As per written report, there is specific allegation against the petitioners of assaulting Informant and his sons. Case diary was called for, which has been received. Injury Report of the Informant and his sons are available in the Case diary, wherein, doctor has found one incised injury on top of the head on the person of the Informant having size 31⁄2" x 1⁄4" x muscle deep. Aforesaid injury was found to be simple in nature

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29853 of 2017 (3) dt.18-10-2017 2/2 after CT scan. Doctor has found total four injuries on the person of Vijay Kumar, son of the Informant. Injury No.3 was on head and Injury No.4 was on hand, which was found to be grievous. As such, there is specific allegation against both the petitioners.

In such circumstances, this Court does not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.

Prayer of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.

Petitioners may surrender before the Court below and seek regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed off in accordance with law on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Sanjay Priya, J) JA/- U T