Dinesh Paswan @ Pulu Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2021 Thana- PAKRIDAYAL District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

DINESH PASWAN @ PULU PASWAN Son of Prem Paswan Resident of Village - Ajagarwa, P.S.- Pakridayal, Distt.- East Champaran. 2.

Pradeep Paswan Son of Prem Paswan Resident of Village - Ajagarwa, P.S.- Pakridayal, Distt.- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dhurendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s:

Mr.Akshay Lal Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 01-08-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned APP for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Pakridayal P.S. Case No. 75 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 34 of the Indian Penal Code & later on Section 302 of the IPC was added.

As per allegation, when the informant was sitting on his door, four named accused persons including the petitioners came there on two motorcycles with weapons. They attacked the informant and his family members with knife and Vilash Mahto and Raj Kishore Mahto received knife injuries. Vilash Mahto died during course of treatment in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69 of 2022(2) dt.01-08-2022 2/2 hospital.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that Vilash Mahto sustained only one injury when there is allegation in the FIR that four accused persons assaulted him.

There is allegation that the petitioners along with co-accused persons inflicted knife blow on the members of the informant's side. Vilash Mahto died during course of treatment. It is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T