Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69257 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2020 Thana- PARSA District- Saran ====================================================== RAHUL KUMAR Son of Ram Udar Singh Resident of Village - Sobhe Parsa, P.S.- Parsa, Distt.- Saran at Chapra ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar har 2.

Chandan Kumar Son of Vijay Singh Resident of Village - Sobhe Parsa, P.S.- Parsa, Distt.- Saran at Chapra ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Parties :

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-12-2021 Heard Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner seeks cancellation of bail granted to opposite party no. 2 vide order dated 13.08.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1163 of 2021. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that a wrong statement was made by opposite party no. 2 that five persons who have been implicated in this case have received only simple injuries. It has been submitted that one Chandan Kumar, one of the victims of the case, had received grievous injury.

From the perusal of the order 13.08.2021, it appears that the opposite party no. 2 was granted bail on the ground that he was alleged to have assaulted Ritesh Kumar who has suffered no injury. True it is that there was a submission on behalf of opposite party no. 2 that all the five persons had received simple injuries but such statement was erroneous to the extent that one

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69257 of 2021(2) dt.22-12-2021 2/2 of such victims had received one grievous injury. Be that as it may, so far as the case of opposite party no. 2 is concerned, he is not the author of the grievous injury on Chandan Kumar. The fact of the matter is, which has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the opposite party no. 2 is only said to have assaulted Ritesh Kumar who has not received any injury of any kind. The accusation of the opposite party no. 2 giving threats to the petitioner is also not supported by any evidence in that regard. It would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the Court below in the event of any threat given by opposite party no. 2 or any other accused person.

No good ground has been made out for the present for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party no. 2. The petition has no merits and the same is therefore dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Shamshad/- U T