Patna High CourtCR. MISC./42370/2017dismissed

Subhash Prasad Srivastava v. The State Of Bihar

2017-09-12Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42370 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -169 Year- 2017 Thana -AADAPUR DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== Subhash Prasad Srivastava, son of Jawala Prasad Srivastava, resident of Village- Laxmipur Pokhriya, P.S. Adapur, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh For the Informant : Mr. Kundan Rathore For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 12-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This is an application for bail in connection with Adapur P.S. Case No. 169 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354, 307,147, 148, 149, 379, 504, 506 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner as per FIR is of that he assaulted by farsa on the head of Nagendra Patel and allegation of co-accused is of assault on the deceased.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is case and counter case between the parties and petitioner has also received injuries. Further submission is that one lacerated would is found on the person of Nagendra Patel on his head and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42370 of 2017 (2) dt.12-09-2017 2/2 opinion on injury was kept reserved. Further submission if that he is in custody for about three months.

Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the informant. They have opposed the prayer for bail stating that there is direct allegation against the petitioner causing injury to the injured on his head.

Having heard both sides and in view of facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge in this case or after opinion on injury has come. With the above observation, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U