Patna High CourtCR. MISC./85922/2023bail rejected

Girdhari Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-09Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85922 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-276 Year-2023 Thana- BIRAUL District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Girdhari Thakur Sonof Sudama Thakur Resident Of Village- Parari, PsBirual, Distt- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Girish Chandra Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 09-04-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Biraul P.S. Case no. 276 of 2023 registered under sections 307, 379, 341, 323, 354B, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is said to have given a blow with an iron rod on the head of the son of the informant leading to serious injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. No such occurrence as alleged has taken place. There was no repetition of blow even as per the allegations in the F.I.R. The petitioner is in custody since 16.9.2023 and charge-sheet has been submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85922 of 2023(3) dt.09-04-2024 2/2 in the case.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the injured son of the informant was treated in Paras hospital wherein the injury found was a fracture of the skull (temporal region).

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in the F.I.R together with the submissions made by learned counsel for the informant, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail on completing one year in custody or framing of charge, whichever is later.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Harsh/- U T