Chandrajit Yadav @ Chandjit Kr. Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78285 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-205 Year-2023 Thana- KEWATI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== CHANDRAJIT YADAV @ CHANDJIT KR. YADAV SON OF RAMU YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - DAHIPURA, P.S. - KEOTI, DISTRICT - DARBHANGA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anshuman Singh, Advocate Mr. Madhav Jha, Advocate Mr. Nishant Choudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 19-04-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred the instant application for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Keoti P.S. Case no.205 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under sections 307, 379, 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, on the orders of Ramu Yadav, the accused persons including the petitioner herein are said to have assaulted the informant and others leading to injuries.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78285 of 2023(4) dt.19-04-2024 2/2 the case. No such occurrence as alleged has taken place. Even as per the F.I.R., the allegation levelled against the petitioner is of having assaulted the informant on a non vital part of the body. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and co-accused Ramu Yadav has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 7.11.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. no.71594 of 2023.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State who submits that there is specific overt act against the petitioner of having assaulted the informant on his right leg leading to fracture of the bone.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in the F.I.R. together with the corresponding injury on the informant, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and the application is rejected.

7. In case the petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today and prays for regular bail, the learned Court below shall pass an order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T