Munna Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63748 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2019 Thana- SAKURABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.

MUNNA KUMAR Son of Amar Yadav Resident of Village- Mirganj, P.S.- Sakurabad, District- Jehanabad.

2.

Guddu Kumar Son of Upender Yadav Resident of Village- Mirganj, P.S.- Sakurabad, District- Jehanabad.

3.

Chhotu Kumar @ Chootu Kumar Son of Manoj Yadav Resident of VillageMirganj, P.S.- Sakurabad, District- Jehanabad. 4.

Rahul Kumar Son of Laxman Ram Resident of Village- Mirganj, P.S.- Sakurabad, District- Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Murli Dhar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 24-10-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 341,323, 308, 379, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Sakurabad P.S. Case No. 123/2019.

3. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and the accusations are improbable in absence of any motive for the assault having been assigned. There is no firearm injury to corroborate the accusation of snatching of Rs. 60,000/- by petitioner no. 1 on pistol point. It is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63748 of 2019(2) dt.24-10-2019 2/2 submitted that as a matter of fact there island dispute between the parties leading to lodging of the FIR.

4. Learned APP on the other hand opposes the petition inviting reference to the order of learned ADJ-III taking note of the grievous injury sustained by the informant on his head. It is therefore submitted the accusation of assault by the petitioners stands corroborated.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and gravity of offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed.

Chandran/- (Vikash Jain, J) U T