Fantus Sao @ Shravan Kumar Sao v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69976 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2019 Thana- MOKAMAH District- Patna ====================================================== FANTUS SAO @ SHRAVAN KUMAR SAO Son of Late Anandi Sao Resident of Village - Shivnar, P.S.- Mokama, Distt.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Kashyap For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rina Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 27-07-2022 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.N.Thakur, learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Mokama P.S.Case No. 257 of 2019.

As per allegation, the petitioner caught hold of the father of the informant and co-accused Anoj Sao assaulted him with iron rod on his head. The father of the informant died in the PMCH during the course of treatment.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69976 of 2021(2) dt.27-07-2022 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no allegation against him to assault the deceased. He has submitted further that co-accused Deepak Kumar and Ram Charan Kumar have been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court.

On the other hand, learned APP has submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he was catching hold facilitating Anuj Sao in assaulting the deceased. So far as the persons who have been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court is concerned, there was no specific allegation against them. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. His prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time as provided hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T