Arjun Patel v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77423 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2024 Thana- RASULPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Arjun Patel, S/O Late Jagarnath Patel, R/O Village- Charwan, P.S- Rasulpur, Distt.- Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mahtab Alam, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 17-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the son of the informant has gone to fetch vegetables. In the way, the petitioner demanded his arrears from the son of the informant on which he replied that he will give the same on the next day. It is further alleged that the petitioner gave a knife blow in the stomach of the informant's son and after this he again gave a knife blow on the kidney.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is also a counter version of this case in which it is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77423 of 2024(4) dt.17-03-2025 2/2 alleged that rangdaari was demanded and the overt act is the private defence of the petitioner. From perusal of the injury report it transpires that the injured has received two injuries in his stomach caused by sharp cutting weapon and the nature of the injury is grievous. The Doctor has opined that it may lead to death. The report regarding stage of the trial has been called for from the learned trial court and from perusal of the report it transpires that the case is at the stage of hearing for framing of charge and the trial court has also informed that the trial will be concluded within a period of one year.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation and the injuries received by the injured, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, however, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.

7. Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) durgesh/- U T