Mokhtar Ansari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73768 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2019 Thana- TARAIYA District- Saran ====================================================== Mokhtar Ansari Son of Jainuddin Ansari Resident of Village - Mukundpur, P.S.- Taraiya, Distt. - Saran at Chapra ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajendra Nath Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 20-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of bail in connection with Taraiya P.S. Case No. 84 of 2019 (District Saran at Chapra) registered for the offence under sections 147,148,149,341,323,307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the allegation in the FIR, the petitioner and two other persons are said to have assaulted the brothers of the informant with iron rod and lathi.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations against the petitioner along with two other persons are general in nature and there is no specific allegation as to who gave assault with lathi or who was carrying iron rod.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73768 of 2019(2) dt.20-11-2019 2/2 It is further submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 24.03.2019. It is submitted by learned counsel for the informant that the petitioner is named in the FIR and there is direct and specific allegation that he along with two other persons assaulted the brothers of the informant with iron rod and lathi and from perusal of the injury report it would transpire that the injuries are on vital part of the body as a result of which the skull and head have also fractured. It is further submitted that in the opinion of the doctor the nature of injury is grievous. The application for bail is also opposed by learned APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation in the FIR together with the injury report, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and as such his application for bail is rejected. However, if so advised, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Prakash/- U