Kapilmuni Ram And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.47972 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -150 Year- 2018 Thana -KARAHGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================
1. Kapilmuni Ram, Son of Late Vishwanath Ram,
2. Akam Ram, Son of Late Baliram Ram,
3. Laljee Ram @ Lala Jee Ram, Son of Late Baliram Ram,
4. Rambali Ram @ Rajbali Ram, Son of Sheomuni Ram,
5. Rajnikant Ram, Son of Sheomuni Ram,
6. Ritesh Ram @ Sujit Ram @ Sunil Ram @ Ritesh Kumar, Son of Kapilmuni Ram, All resident of Village- Bhokhari, P.S.- Sirhri O.P. (Kargahar), District- Rohatas, at Sasaram.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha For the informant : Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 448, 307 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused persons having formed unlawful assembly, came armed with weapons and assaulted the informant as a result of which, informant's leg was broken and he also received bleeding injury on his head. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47972 of 2018 (3) dt.05-10-2018 tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. General and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioners. No specific injury has been attributed against the petitioners. Out of 9 injuries, only one injury on non-vital part of the body is said to be grievous in nature. Rest of the injuries are said to be simple in nature.
On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioners are named in the Complaint Case/F.I.R. There is direct allegation of assault against the petitioners. The injury report also supports the allegations, made in the FIR.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners in connection with Kargahar (Sirhi) P.S. Case No. 150 of 2018 is rejected.
If the petitioners surrender in the court below, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.
(Sudhir Singh, J) A.K.V./- U T