Shyam Rai And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.47813 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -165 Year- 2015 Thana -MAJORGANJ District- SITAMARHI ======================================================

1. Shyam Rai S/o late Baidya Nath Rai

2. Rambhu Rai@Ram Babu Rai Son of late Baidyanath Rai Both Resident of Village- Narha Dheb Tola, P.S. Majorganj, District Sitamarhi.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Virendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 28-11-2016 Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the APP for the State.

The petitioners along with others are cited accused of Majorganj P.S. Case No. 165 of 2015, registered under Sections 341, 323, 326(A), 307, 379, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged that while the husband of the informant was returning home, petitioner no. 1 intercepted him. On protest, petitioner no. 1 tried to inflict knife blow. In the meantime, petitioner no. 2 threw acid on the face of the husband of the informant causing serious injuries inasmuch as his two eyes severely damaged.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47813 of 2016 (2) dt.28-11-2016 2/2 The contention of the petitioners is that there is a counter version in the shape of Annexure-2. The allegation of throwing acid is attributed to the petitioner no. 2 and not petitioner no. 1. Both, although, have no criminal antecedent. The APP opposes the prayer of bail and submits with reference to the allegation made in the F.I.R. that both the petitioners were present and one of them threw acid on the face of the husband of the informant which caused serious damage to his eyes.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that at least one petitioner against whom there is no allegation of throwing acid should be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail. In my view, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Prayer is rejected. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the court below and seek regular bail, which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit in accordance with law.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) ajaypd./- U T