Vipin Mehta @ Vipul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76729 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2025 Thana- Shahpur P.S. District- Nawada ====================================================== Vipin Mehta @ Vipul Kumar S/o Upendra Prasad @ Upendra Mehta R/o Village- Jagdishpur, PS- Shahpur, Distt.- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nagendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-12-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Shahpur P.S. Case No.58/2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(1), 192, 190, 126(2), 115(2), 74, 303(2), 324(4), 109, 352, 351(2) and 329(4) of the B.N.S., 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on 06.06.2025, he had gone to purchase articles with regard to marriage of his sister, when 15 accused persons including the petitioner came and assaulted his family members and destroyed the tent fixed for the marriage and looted ornaments, further the accused persons threatened that they will have to do the work which they are asked to do, further the police was informed and injured was taken to hospital and his brother died during course of treatment.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76729 of 2025(2) dt.01-12-2025 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that there is no specific allegation of assaulting the brother of the informant rather the allegation of assault is general and omnibus in nature.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and draws the attention of the court to the order impugned and submits that the order impugned clearly records that independent witness Joginder Ram stated that this petitioner along with Brijmohan Prasad assaulted the deceased injuring him grievously who died later during the course of treatment. It is next submitted that investigation in the case is in its nascent stages and the brother of the informant has died.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T