Mithlesh Chaudhary v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66936 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-150 Year-2024 Thana- AKBARPUR District- Nawada ====================================================== Mithlesh Chaudhary Son of Sarjun Chaudhary Resident of Village- Mahima Bigha, P.S.- Akbarpur, District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 22-03-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Akbarpur P.S. Case No.150 of 2024, lodged on 29.04.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections under Sections 147/149/341/323/324/307/379/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against sixteen named accused persons including the present petitioner. It has been alleged in the FIR that all accused persons including the present petitioner gathered at the house of the informant and assaulted him. Allegation of attack by sword on the head of the informant is against Mithlesh Chaudhary and allegation of assault by rod on the hand of the informant is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66936 of 2024(3) dt.22-03-2025 2/2 against the present petitioner.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is false and concocted. He submits that the informant and the petitioner are co-villagers and own Gotia and land dispute is going on between the parties.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the informant has sustained grievous injury caused by the present petitioner.

6. Considering the fact that petitioner has knowledge that his act might cause death, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is refused. However, in the event of surrender of the petitioner, the prayer for regular bail shall be considered without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- U T