Patna High CourtCR. MISC./67342/2019dismissed

Mahendra Rawat @ Mahendra Pd. Rawat v. The State Of Bihar

2019-11-07Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67342 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-309 Year-2019 Thana- LAXMIPUR DistrictJamui ====================================================== 1.

MAHENDRA RAWAT @ MAHENDRA PD. RAWAT Son of Late Prasad Rawat Resident of Village- Sewa, P.S.- Gidhaur, District- Jamui. 2.

Piti Rawat @ Abhay Rawat Son of Mahendra Rawat @ Mahendra Pd. Rawat Resident of Village- Sewa, P.S.- Gidhaur, District- Jamui. ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners :

Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party:

Mr. Sucheta Yadav, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 07-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 341, 323, 308, 379, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Laxmipur P.S. Case No. 309 of 2019.

3. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the backdrop of petty dispute between the parties. There is no accusation that the petitioners were armed with any weapons rather they have said to have assaulted merely with fists and kicks. The injuries sustained by the informant's husband are simple in nature except injury no. 6 by way of broken tooth. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67342 of 2019(2) dt.07-11-2019 2/2 petitioners claim clean antecedents.

4. Learned APP appears and opposes the petition, submitting that the informant's husband has suffered grievous injury by virtue of loss of tooth which corroborates the accusation of assault by the petitioners on the vital part of the body.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and the gravity of the offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The petition stands dismissed.

6. If the petitioners surrender and seek regular bail before the learned Court below the same shall be considered on its own merit in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by any observation in the present order.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- U T