Rajendra Prasad @ Minu Kohar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62676 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-222 Year-2024 Thana- SIMRI District- Buxar ====================================================== Rajendra Prasad @ Minu Kohar Son of Late Kashinath Kohar Resident of Vill- Kazipur Dumari, P.S.- Simari, District- Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Gupta, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 05-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Simri P.S. Case No. 222 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354(B), 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegedly, all the FIR named accused along with 2-3 unknown persons, are said to have abused and assaulted the informant's side brutally due to which they sustained injuries. In course of the alleged occurrence, petitioner is said to have outraged the modesty of the informant.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged has ever taken place.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62676 of 2024(2) dt.05-10-2024 2/2 He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. Petitioner is brother-in-law of the informant and as such the allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. There is admitted land dispute between the parties for which title suit bearing Title Suit No. 265 of 2011 as well as Title Appeal No. 9 of 2017 is pending between them. There is no cogent evidence against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T