Sachin Yadav @ Suchin Yadav @ Kittu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80880 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2023 Thana- MORKAHI District- Khagaria ====================================================== SACHIN YADAV @ SUCHIN YADAV @ KITTU YADAV S/O DHANIK YADAV VILLAGE- RASONK, PS. MORKAHI, DIST. KHAGARIA. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Suman Kumari Singh, 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 Morkahi P.S. Case No. 70 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326 & 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Allegedly, all the accused persons including the petitioner are said to have assaulted the informant's husband brutally with Tangi and Dabiya due to which he sustained injuries upon his neck and mouth.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Both the parties are agnates. 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.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80880 of 2023(2) dt.19-12-2023 2/2 There is admitted land dispute 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 along with other co-accused assaulted the informant's husband by means of deadly weapons as a result of which he sustained grievous injury over his jaw due to which he is not able to speak. 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.

8. However, if petitioner surrenders before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seeks regular bail, the learned Court below shall pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T