Patna High CourtCR. MISC./58865/2022dismissed

Pradeep Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2023-02-03Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58865 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-203 Year-2022 Thana- MIRGANJ District- Gopalganj ====================================================== PRADEEP RAI SON OF BASUDEO RAI @ BASUDEV RAY R/O VILLAGE- BHAROPATTI, P.S.- MIRGANJ, DISTRICT- GOPALGANJ ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Roy,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary,APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 03-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through video conferencing in view of the COVID 19.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mirganj P.S. Case No. 203 of 2022 for the offence registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 354, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that her father-in-law had got a land some years back which was being surrounded by pillars and in the process, altercation took place between the accused persons which resulted into assault on the informant's side. Allegation against one Bullet Ram is of pulling her hair and further the lady Subhawati Devi and Romi Devi outrage her modesty and later allegation against this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58865 of 2022(2) dt.03-02-2023 2/2 petitioner is that he inflicted 'farsa' blow on the head of Ravi Rai causing injuries while Ranjit Rai opened fire. Subsequently, the injured persons were taken to Sadar Hospital and later referred to Gorakhpur. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged. Learned APP for the State pointed out that the 'farsa' injury given by the petitioner herein has been found to be grievous in nature.

Taking into account the kind of allegation that has come against the petitioner, certainly this is not a case fit for which the privilege of anticipatory bail can be extended, which is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) JagdishNeha/- U T