Amit Ram @ Amit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87442 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-688 Year-2023 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui ====================================================== Amit Ram @ Amit Kumar S/o- Ramji Ram R/o village- Kalyanpur, P.S. and Dist. Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Akash Raj, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 23-01-2025
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Jamui P.S. Case No. 688 of 2023, disclosing offences punishable under Section 341, 323, 307, 504, 379, 506, and 34 of Indian Penal Code .
3. As per the prosecution case on 22.11.2023, in the evening the informant was going on his car alongwith his brother and nephew. The petitioner along with 10-12 unknown persons, stopped him and started abusing him and on protest the informant and his nephew were assaulted with iron rod, bricks, lathi etc and sum of Rs. 2,25,000 was looted and the car was also damaged.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87442 of 2024(2) dt.23-01-2025 2/2 there is delay in lodging the FIR inasmuch as the occurrence has taken place on 22.11.2023 at about 8:30 PM regarding which the information to the police was given on 23.11.2023 at about 3:10 PM and the FIR has been lodged on 23.11.2023 after delay of more than 18 hours. He further submits that injury caused to the informant is simple in nature which is evident from Annexure P/2 series. During the investigation, the police did not collect the CCTV footage near the place of occurrence which is a busy market place. The informant was having previous enmity with petitioner and in order to take vengeance, the petitioner has falsely been implicated.
5. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation and the fact that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent of four cases, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) Suruchi/- U T