Patna High CourtCR. MISC./70913/2023dismissed

Rajesh Tiwari @ Rajesh Kumar Tiwari v. The State Of Bihar

2024-02-05Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70913 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2022 Thana- BAIKUNTHPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1.

RAJESH TIWARI @ RAJESH KUMAR TIWARI SON OF LATE LAXMI NARAYAN TIWARI R/O VILLAGE- HAMIDPUR, P.S.-BAIKUNTHPUR, DIST.- GOPALGANJ 2.

HIMANSHU TIWARI @ MANISH KUMAR TIWARI SON OF RAJESH TIWARI R/O VILLAGE- HAMIDPUR, P.S.- BAIKUNTHPUR, DIST.- GOPALGANJ 3.

CHANDAN TIWARI @ CHANDAN KUMAR TIWARI SON OF RAJESH TIWARI R/O VILLAGE- HAMIDPUR, P.S.- BAIKUNTHPUR, DIST.- GOPALGANJ ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR PATNA ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Suman Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bishweshwar Ram, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 05-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Baikunthpur P.S. Case No. 183 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 326(A), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegedly, the petitioners are said to have thrown acid upon the informant as a result of which his body and face got burnt.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70913 of 2023(3) dt.05-02-2024 2/2 that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged ever took place. They have been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is totally false and based on concocted facts. The alleged injury is superficial and has been caused by warm liquid. Both the parties are pattidars and they are residing in one house. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case as well as the nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T