Subhash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70493 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-751 Year-2023 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali ====================================================== Subhash Kumar S/o Ramlal Ray Residnet of village - Kushar Khas, Ward no 10, PS- Mahua, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajeev Ranjan No. II For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Pronoti Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-10-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 29.07.2024 and he is a person with clean antecedent. It is further submitted that though allegation against this petitioner is of assaulting the informant by sword causing injury on head, but then, from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the same records that injury was caused by hard and blunt substance, which belies the allegation of assault by sword, which is a sharp edged weapon.

4. Learned A.P.P. opposes the bail application and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70493 of 2024(2) dt.18-10-2024 2/2 submits that the petitioner might have assaulted the injured from the blunt side of the sword causing injury and the order impugned records that the injury has been opined to be grievous in nature.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that on account of dispute relating to land, an altercation had taken place in which both sides assaulted each other and the blow was not repeated but then, fairly submits that the injury has been opined to be grievous in nature.

6. On query of the Court that as to whether charges have been framed against the petitioner or not, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly submits that charges till date have not been framed. The Court for the present is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for bail stands rejected.

8. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T