Patna High CourtCR. MISC./53984/2019dismissed

Shivnath Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

2019-11-27Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53984 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-126 Year-2019 Thana- RAJAPAKAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.

Shivnath Pandit, 2.

Ramnath Pandit, both sons of Sri Jagnath Pandit, resident of villageChakyari, P.S.- Raja Pakar, District- Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pancha Nand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 27-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Rajapakar PS Case No.126 of 2019 dated 09.06.2019 instituted under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is of assault; specifically against petitioner no.1 of assaulting the younger brother of the informant by iron rod, whereas, against petitioner no. 2 is of giving farsa blow on the head of the informant. Further, it was alleged that co-accused had taken rupees thirty thousand from the pocket of the informant and had also

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53984 of 2019 dt.27-11-2019 2/2 threatened to kill them.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is also a counter case, which was lodged earlier to the present case.

5. Learned APP submitted that there is specific and direct allegation of assault. It was further submitted that the injuries on the informant and his brother corroborate the allegation.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court does not find it a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) J. Alam/- AFR/NAFR U T