Patna High CourtCR. MISC./71133/2024bail rejected

Dinesh Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2024-10-04Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71133 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-436 Year-2023 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna ====================================================== Dinesh Rai Son of Late Bhagwat Rai Village- Jamalpur, Ps- Gaurikchak, Distpatna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nityanand Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 04-10-2024 Heard Mr. Anshul, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as also learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Gaurichak P.S. Case No. 436 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504, 506/34, 302 of the I.P.C. lodged on 27.07.2023, by the informant, Surendra Ray.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant has alleged that his brother had sold soil of twenty four Kathas to Nagina Rai and Dinesh Rai when it was protested by the informant's side, allegation is that Dinesh Rai as also Lalu Rai assaulted Sunil and Harendra by 'sword' and 'iron rod' respectively. Gopal Rai assaulted the informant. Allegation

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71133 of 2024(2) dt.04-10-2024 2/2 against Ranjan Rai is of assaulting his son Harendra Rai, causing injury near his eyes. This followed another assault by him on the head of Harendra Rai, as a result, he became unconscious. The presence of Rahul Kumar is also there in the FIR. Accordingly, the FIR.

4. Though Mr. Anshul tried to impress upon this Court that number of persons have been made accused, regarding the assault part is concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that a perusal of the FIR would show that specific allegation is there against this petitioner.

5. Considering the submission put forward by the parties as also the allegation that has come against the petitioner, this Court do not deem it fit and proper to extend him privilege of bail, which is accordingly rejected.

6. The Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial as the petitioner is in custody.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U T