Patna High CourtCR. MISC./4804/2024dismissed

Rakesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2024-02-20Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4804 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-208 Year-2022 Thana- DAUDNAGAR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar SONE OF MUNARIK YADAV Village Misir Bigha ps Daudnagar Distt Aurangawad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Yadav, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 20-02-2024 Heard Mr. Parmod Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 208 of 2022 for the offence under sections 341, 323, 379, 307, 504/34 of the I.P.C. lodged on 21.04.2022 by the informant, Pooja Kumari.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that the accused persons came, abused and when his father came out, on the order of Munarik Yadav, this petitioner gave repeated iron rod blow to the informant's father causing injury. The further allegation is that when the informant's mother and brother went to save the father, they assaulted them. Accordingly, the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4804 of 2024(2) dt.20-02-2024 2/2 there is delay in lodging of the FIR without any explanation and it is counter version of Daudnagar P.S. Case No. 195 of 2022.

5. His further submission is that injury report has not been provided and the same was kept reserve and as such, it cannot be said that it is grievous.

6. Learned APP, on the other hand, submits that a bare perusal of the allegation would show that the repeated iron rod blow has been given to the informant's father and the role has been attributed to this petitioner.

7. Considering the kind of allegation that has come against the petitioner, he does not reserve anticipatory bail, which is accordingly rejected.

8. The petitioner is well advised to move before the Court after surrendering for bail and in that case, an appropriate order shall be passed preferably on the same day and it is expected that the injury report will be taken into consideration before an order is passed.

(Rajiv Roy, J) kiran/- U T