Kamlesh Sahni And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17044 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -40 Year- 2016 Thana -PHENHARA DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Kamlesh Sahni, son of Ganaur Sahni,

2. Ganaur Sahni, son of Late Jagdhari Sahni,

3. Ashok Sahni, son of Kamlesh Sahni, All residents of VillageKhanpipra, Police Station- Phenhara, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anwar Karim, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.M. Mehta, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 27-07-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Phenhara P.S. Case No. 40 of 2016, registered under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari. The accusation is that on 29.05.2016, in the evening, the petitioner No.1 accompanied to Shivjee Sahni, son of the informant, for learning to drive the tractor in the field, where petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 caught hold his hands and caused assault at his head causing blood oozing injury. At that time, Bidyanand Sahni and Bindeshwari Sahani were cutting the grass rushed to save

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17044 of 2017 (4) dt.27-07-2017 2/2 his son.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in fact, the tractor attached with the trailer was being driven by the petitioner and son of the informant was hanging on the trailer and fell down and come under the wheel of the tractor and died. Further submission is that due to sustaining injury by the son of the informant, a Panchayati was arranged and, accordingly, ten katha of land was to be given by the accused persons to the informant, which would appear from paragraph 16 of the case diary.

On the other learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner with contention that in para 6 and 7, the witnesses have supported the prosecution case.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T