Patna High CourtCR. MISC./78678/2023bail rejected

Arjun Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-12Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78678 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2020 Thana- PARAIYA District- Gaya ====================================================== ARJUN YADAV S/O CHANDRADEV YADAV R/O VILLAGE- LODIPUR, P.S- PARAIYA, DISTT.- GAYA.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vijay Kumar, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 12-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Paraiya P.S. Case no.- 13 of 2020 registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 427, 379, 353 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 12.01.2020 by the informant, Vinay Sharma.

3. As per the FIR, the informant has alleged that amongst other it was the petitioner herein who gave 'sword' blow on the head of his brother causing injury to him. He further submits that other accused persons also assaulted him as also damaged his vehicle. It was only with the intervention of the police, the alleged 'Jam' was removed and the informant and others saved themselves.

4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner submits

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78678 of 2023(4) dt.12-07-2024 2/2 that against the allegation of assault by Suresh Yadav on the head so far as this petitioner is concerned, he gave sword blow as the informant tried to save himself, his left finger was severely injured and profound bleeding took place. Though the brothers had to escape, their vehicles having been damaged by the accused persons including this petitioner.

5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail submits that the matter is of the year 2020, the petitioner has evaded arrest for almost four years and has preferred anticipatory bail application in the year 2023.

6. Considering the allegation that has come and the delay in approaching the Court as also the submissions of the learned APP, it would be appropriate that the petitioner seeks bail.

7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail petition stands rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Jagdish/- U T