Md Sajjad Alam v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77050 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2024 Thana- THAKURGANJ District- Kishanganj ====================================================== Md Sajjad Alam Son of Md Majnu Resident of Village- Porabhitta, P.S. Thakurganj, District- Kishanganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 13-11-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Thakurganj P.S. Case No. 101 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable u/s 329(4), 127(2), 74, 76, 115(2), 110, 351(2), 3(5), 79 of the B.N.S.

3.

As per prosecution case, the petitioner along with one another co-accused person abused and assaulted the informant and her family members with lathi and iron rod due to which informant and her family members sustained grievous injury. 4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to his earlier criminal antecedent. No incriminating article was recovered

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77050 of 2024(2) dt.13-11-2024 2/2 from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner. He has been made accused in the present case due to land dispute between the parties. It is also submitted that in course of fighting between the parties, the informant fell down on the earth due to which she suffered injury. Injury was found grievous in nature. It is further submitted that occurrence took place on 08.07.2024, but FIR was lodged after delay of four days. Petitioner has three criminal antecedent as mentioned in para 3 of the bail application.

5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the nature of injury, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) priyanka/- U T