Panna Lal Paswan @ Panna Lal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79383 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-57 Year-2023 Thana- HARPUR District- Munger ====================================================== Panna Lal Paswan @ Panna Lal son of Laxmi Paswan R/o- DurMatta PSHarpur Dist- Munger ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 18-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner in the present case is seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Harpur P.S. Case No. 57 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 323, 324, 338, 307, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. He has got no criminal antecedent.

3. As per the prosecution story, on 10.07.2023 at about 07:30 P.M., all the accused persons including this petitioner arrived in the field of the informant and started abusing the informant and assaulted the driver of the tractor who was ploughing the field of the informant. When the informant protested, Pannalal (this petitioner) assaulted on his head with a brick which resulted in grievous head injury. It is alleged that accused Alok Paswan assaulted with Kachiya on left side of the back of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a case and counter case between the parties and the case lodged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79383 of 2023(2) dt.18-01-2024 2/2 by the petitioner's side which is Annexure '2' is prior in time. The present case is a counter blast of the said case.

5. Learned counsel submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that of inflicting a serious injury on the head of the informant.

6. Learned APP for the State points out from the impugned order that the injury caused by the petitioner upon the informant is fatal in nature as it would appear that the petitioner has caused fracture in right temporal bone of the informant. This is in the nature of a grievous injury, hence, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the kind of injury inflicted upon the head of the informant and there being a specific allegation that this petitioner has caused the said injury, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, thus, refused.

9. In case the petitioner surrenders and prays for regular bail in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, his prayer for regular bail shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudice by the order of this Court.

10. This application stands disposed of.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SUSHMA2/- U T