Patna High CourtCR. MISC./80162/2024dismissed

Rajesh Mehta @ Rajesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-12-04Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80162 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-207 Year-2024 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria ====================================================== 1.

Rajesh Mehta @ Rajesh Kumar S/O Shivanand Mehta @ Shiv Nandan Mehta Resident Of Village -Bishariyapatti, Ward No- 02 P.S- Bhargama ,Distt.- Araria 2.

Rakesh Mehta @ Rakesh Kumar Singh S/O Shivanand Mehta @ Shiv Nandan Mehta Resident Of Village -Bishariyapatti, Ward No- 02 P.SBhargama ,Distt.- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Rana, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Kumar Kumar Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 04-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Bhargama P.S. Case No. 207 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 308(2), 109, 119(1), 74, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners along with other co-accused persons are said to have assaulted the informant and her husband.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80162 of 2024(2) dt.04-12-2024 2/2 this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that there is admitted land dispute between the parties. The petitioners have one criminal antecedent as mentioned in para3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the petitioners are said to have assaulted the husband of the informant and the injury is found grievous in nature.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the nature of the injury, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

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