Ravindra Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81006 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-277 Year-2022 Thana- AWTARNAGAR District- Saran ====================================================== RAVINDRA RAI SON OF RAJESHWAR RAI RESIDENT OF VILLAGECHHOTAMI, POLICE STATION- AWTARNAGAR, DISTRICT- SARAN ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Krishna Kumar Yadav, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Dilip Kumar No.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 19-12-2023 Heard Mr. Krishna Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dilip Kumar No.1, learned APP for the State. 2.

Petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Awatar Nagar P.S. Case No.277 of 2022, registered for the offence punishable u/s 341, 342, 323, 325, 307, 379, 504/34 of the IPC.

3.

As per the prosecution case, the accused persons committed assault with the family members of the informant and on the order of co-accused Raju Rai, Mukesh Rai assaulted with farsa on the head of the informant and thereafter all the accused persons assaulted him with iron rod and lathi. 4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has not committed any offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81006 of 2023(2) dt.19-12-2023 2/2 motive. No such occurrence in the manner as alleged has ever taken place. There is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons and there is no specific overt act against the petitioner. Earlier the informant has filed three cases against the petitioner and other co-accused persons alleging therein that the accused persons have tried to kidnap the daughter of the informant's family. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. 5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on his behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

8.

However, petitioner is at liberty to surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks and seek regular bail and the learned Court below would pass order, preferably, on the same day, in accordance with law. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T