Raushan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85860 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-310 Year-2019 Thana- PALIGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

RAUSHAN KUMAR Son of Shivnath Prasad, Resident of Village - Purni Saraiya, P.S.- Paliganj, District- Patna 2.

Manjish Kumar Son of Shivnath Prasad, Resident of Village - Purni Saraiya, P.S.- Paliganj, District- Patna 3.

Shivnath Prasad Son of Late Daroga Saw, Resident of Village - Purni Saraiya, P.S.- Paliganj, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anirudh Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nityanand, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 09-02-2021 Heard both sides.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in Paliganj P.S. Case No.310 of 2019 registered under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 307, 504, 506 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that while he was sitting at his shop, he got information from his house that Raushan Kumar, Manjish Kumar and Shivnath Prasad (petitioners) came to his house and demanded money. When the wife of the informant objected, the accused persons are said to have disclosed that they spent money for not instituting the case against them and the same would be recovered from the informant and his family

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85860 of 2019(3) dt.09-02-2021 2/2 members. It is further alleged that when the informant and his son was coming to his house, the petitioner and others indiscriminately assaulted the informant and his son with sword and knife.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a counter version being Paliganj P.S. Case No.309 of 2019. Petitioner no.1 also got injury and he was referred to PMCH for treatment.

Perused the records. It appears that there is specific allegation that all the three petitioners assaulted the informant and his son. From perusal of the injury report, it appears that the informant and his son got many injuries on different parts of their bodies.

Having considered the facts aforesaid and the fact that of course there is a counter version but since many injuries are caused on the persons of the informant and his son, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T