Bhushan Bihari Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1097 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-485 Year-2023 Thana- LAHERIYASARAI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== 1.

Bhushan Bihari Prasad Son Of Brij Bihari Prasad Resident Of Village / Mohalla - Maulaganj Madarpur, P.S. - Laheriasarai, District - Darbhanga 2.

Raj Suman @ Sangeet Kumar Son Of Brij Bihari Prasad Resident Of Village / Mohalla - Maulaganj Madarpur, P.S. - Laheriasarai, District - Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Nilesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mohammed Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 29-01-2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application so far as petitioner No. 2, namely, Raj Suman @ Sangeet Kumar is concerned.

2. The prayer is allowed.

3. Accordingly, the application is dismissed as withdrawn so far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned.

4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

5. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Laheriasarai P.S. Case No. 485 of 2023 registered for the offence under Sections 323, 325, 341, 354(B), 385, 307, 427, 448, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

6. The allegation against the petitioner is specific. He

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1097 of 2024(2) dt.29-01-2024 2/2 assaulted with an intention to kill the informant Vinod Kumar.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is quite innocent and falsely been implicated in this case to save the skin of counter blast case.

8. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State duly assisted by learned counsel for the informant strongly opposes the prayer of bail of the petitioner and submits that the allegation against the petitioner is specific. The injury caused to the informant is grevious in nature.

9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties and nature of injury, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner No.1. The prayer is rejected.

10. Accordingly, anticipatory bail application is rejected.

11. Petitioner No. 1 is directed to surrender before the learned Court concerned within 15 days. The learned Court concerned after hearing of the concerned parties pass appropriate order without prejudice.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) saurabhkr/- U T