Sri Bhagwan Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78784 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-382 Year-2020 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur ====================================================== 1.

SRI BHAGWAN PANDEY Son of Late Dev Sharan Pandey R/o vill - Badaki Sandiya, P.S. - Ara Muffasil, Distt. - Bhojpur 2.

Mukesh Pandey Son of Sri Bhagwan Pandey R/o vill - Badaki Sandiya, P.S. - Ara Muffasil, Distt. - Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pranav Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 15-12-2023 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Ara Muffasil P.S. Case No. 382 of 2020 registered for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioners was rejected vide order dated 04.03.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 68199 of 2019. Further he submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the instant case due to land dispute and that the petitioner no. 1 had also lodged a case

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78784 of 2023(3) dt.15-12-2023 2/2 against the informant. It is also submitted that the informant and his mother had received injury which is simple in nature and the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. 4.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposes the prayer of bail and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioners of causing injury to the informant and his mother as corroborated by the injury report contained at Annexure-3 series. Further submission is that earlier vide order dated 04.03.2020 prayer of bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit and now there is no fresh ground to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 5.

Considering that there is no fresh ground for grant of bail and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. His prayer for bail is accordingly rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) anuradha/- U T