Amit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65696 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2021 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria ====================================================== AMIT KUMAR S/o Hariballabh Singh R/o Village- Lalpur, P.S.- Chautham, Distt- Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Pawan Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Harendra Prasad, APP For the informant :
Mr.Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 05-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as also the informant.
Let the defect(s), if any, as pointed out by the office be removed within four weeks.
The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Chautham P.S. Case No. 180 of 2021, G.R. No. 2659 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 447, 324, 307, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the prosecution story, the allegation against the petitioner amongst others is of giving 'dabia' blow to the son of the informant causing injury to him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the accused persons have since been released on bail vide Cr. Misc. No. 61501 of 2021. Further submission is that he is in custody since 28.6.2022 (as stated in para-11 of the bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65696 of 2022(2) dt.05-04-2023 2/2 application).
Per contra, learned counsel for the informant submits that so far as the case that has been referred by him in which bail has been granted, it related to the sister-in-law (Gotni) and the brother-in-law (Bhaisur) and further no role was attributed to the lady.
So far as this petitioner is concerned, it is contended by him that not only he gave 'dabia' blow, in para-3 of the petition, it was stated that he do not have criminal antecedent despite him having criminal cases lodged against him. However, when this was pointed out in the last hearing before the coordinate bench of this Court, now a supplementary affidavit has been filed showing that he is accused in two criminal cases. Considering the nature of allegation that has come in the petition as also the fact that he tried to hide his criminal antecedents, for the present, this court is not inclined to grant him the privilege of bail which is accordingly rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ajay Singh/- U T