Ram Ratan Bhagat @ Ram Ratan Bhatat @ Ram Ratan Malakar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81198 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-268 Year-2023 Thana- FATEHPUR District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

RAM RATAN BHAGAT @ RAM RATAN BHATAT @ RAM RATAN MALAKAR S/O AYODHYA BHAGAT VILLAGE- DIHURI, PS. FATEHPUR, DIST. GAYA.

2.

SUDAMA MALAKAR @ PRINCE KUMAR S/O RAM RATAN BHAGAT @ RAM RATAN BHATAT @ RAM RATAN MALAKAR VILLAGEDIHURI, PS. FATEHPUR, DIST. GAYA. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shivendra Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 05-03-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 504, 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Fatehpur P.S.Case No. 268 of 2023.

3. The petitioners along with other co-accused persons are alleged to have assaulted the informant, his wife and daughter with lathi, knife etc., causing multiple injuries on their persons. It is further alleged that petitioner no.1 snatched silver chain from the wife of the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81198 of 2023(3) dt.05-03-2024 2/2

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the occurrence took place on 30.03.2023, but the FIR was lodged belatedly on 11.04.2023. The petitioners bear clean antecedents.

5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail, submitting that the petitioners and other co-accused persons inflicted grievous injuries to the victims.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, and in view of injuries inflicted upon the injured, the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail, which is hereby rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) HR/- U T