Chitranjan Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No 76070 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2019 Thana- RISIYAP District- Aurangabad ====================================================== 1.

CHITRANJAN MEHTA, Son of Late Faguni Mahto, Resident of Village - Gheura, P.S.- Risiup, Distt.- Aurangabad.

2.

Raju Ranjan @ Rajnandan Kumar Mehta, Son of Late Faguni Mahto, Resident of Village - Gheura, P.S.- Risiup, Distt.- Aurangabad. 3.

Ranjay Kumar Mahto @ Ranjan Kumar Mahto @ Arunjay Kumar Mehta, Son of Late Faguni Mahto, Resident of Village - Gheura, P.S.- Risiup, Distt.- Aurangabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pradeep Narain Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 02-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State.

Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504/34 of Indian Penal Code. Petitioners' counsel submits that the prosecution case is not supported by the injury report. The victims have been found to be suffering with only simple injuries. It is submitted that the informant's side and the petitioners are agnates residing in the same premises and the injuries have been caused in a minor scuffle in relation to the dispute with regard to drain. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76070 of 2019(2) dt.02-12-2019 2/2 This Court, after hearing the parties, would consider that the injury report is in relation to female members of the family. Allegation of assault has been levelled against the petitioners individually with details.

Considering the nature of offence wherein it is alleged that the petitioners have assaulted their own aunts within the house premises, this Court is not inclined to allow privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Prayer is rejected. Petitioners would be at liberty to approach the Court below for regular bail and if they do so, their prayer for bail shall be considered and disposed of, preferably on the same day, on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U T