Tabrej Nadaf v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83454 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-169 Year-2024 Thana- AMDABAD District- Katihar ====================================================== Tabrej Nadaf Son of Late Mainu Nadaf Resident of Village - Navratanpur, Amdabad, Ward No.15, P.S. - Amdabad, District - Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rambabu Yadav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 16-12-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner in this application prays for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Amdabad P.S.Case no.169 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under sections 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that over a trivial dispute the petitioner started to abuse and assault her. It is further stated that on her son protesting, the petitioner gave a sickle blow on the head of her son causing grievous injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of dispute between the parties who are neighbours. There is case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83454 of 2024(2) dt.16-12-2024 2/2 and counter case with respect to the same occurrence. There is unexplained delay in filing of the FIR, the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner of having given a sickle blow on the head of the son of the informant leading to grivious injury, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.
7. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the learned Court below within a period of four weeks.
(Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash/- U T