Shakil Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68024 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2024 Thana- Dehri Mufassil District- Rohtas ====================================================== Shakil Ansari Son of Kurban Ansari R/o Village- Deoriya, P.S.- Dehri (Mu.), District- Rohtas at Sasaram ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-12-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Dehri Muffasil P.S. Case No.86/2024, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 143, 504, 506, 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is alleged to have assaulted the injured with an iron rod causing injury on head. It is next submitted that the F.I.R. has been instituted after a delay of two days and when the F.I.R. was instituted, at that time, Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was not added but subsequently after one month, during the course of investigation, Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code has been added. It is also submitted that on account of trivial dispute, the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68024 of 2024(3) dt.18-12-2024 2/2 occurrence is alleged to have taken place, as it is alleged that IPL match was going on, which was being screened and the petitioner and other accused were collecting money for allowing others to witness the match, on which, a dispute arose, when the occurrence is alleged to have taken place.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is specific allegation against this petitioner of assaulting the injured by an iron rod causing injury on head, which is vital part of the body and the injury is grievous in nature, which amply demonstrates that the force used by the petitioner for committing the occurrence was much.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T