Raj Narayan Soni @ Raja Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80920 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-243 Year-2023 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran ====================================================== RAJ NARAYAN SONI @ RAJA PRASAD SON OF LATE HARENATH PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MADHAURA KHURD, LP.S.- MADHAURA, DISTRICT- SARAN ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhimanyu Deo, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 19-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Madhaura P.S. Case No. 243 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323, 324, 307 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegedly, all the accused persons including the petitioner are said to have abused and assaulted the informant's side brutally with deadly weapons due to which they sustained several injuries.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. The petitioner is own cousin brother and blood relative of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80920 of 2023(2) dt.19-12-2023 2/2 informant. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. There is admitted land dispute between the parties. There is case and counter case between the parties. Petitioner has one criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is serious allegation against the petitioner that he assaulted the informant's brother, namely, Pappu Kumar by means of spade as a result of which his head was fractured and thereafter, the injury sustained by him has been found grievous in nature. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature of the injury, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

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