Bhojal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.52270 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-378 Year-2016 Thana- WAJIRGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== Bhojal Yadav son of Hemraj Yadav @ Baleshwar Prasad Yadav, R/o villageIchua, P.S.- Wazirganj, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vinod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. SRI KUMAR RANJIT RANJAN ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 09-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Wazirganj P. S. Case No. 378 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 324, 504, 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, the petitioner assaulted Rinki Devi with Garansa and lathi-danda causing injury on her head, resulting, she fell down and became senseless.

Submission is of false implication and that there is case and counter case, both sides have received injuries, the petitioners sustained grievous injury and this false case has been filed only with a view to save his skin from the counter case. Other co-accused have been allowed pre-arrest bail, the prosecution party brutally assaulted the petitioner with an

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52270 of 2017(2) dt.09-11-2017 2/2 intention to kill and for that Wazirganj P. S. Case No. 376 of 2017 was lodged and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.

Learned APP opposes the prayer of pre-arrest bail. In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that from the impugned order it reveals that Rinki Devi has sustained lacerated wound on head and further she was referred to A.N.M.C.H. Gaya from where she was referred to Patna and the allegation of assault on Rinki Devi is against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner and accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T