Ramnath Pandit v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1325 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-160 Year-2023 Thana- PHENHARA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ramnath Pandit, Son of Kapil Pandit, R/o Village- Ratanwa, P.O.- Kodariya, P.S. - Phenhara, District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Kunal Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Anupam Raj, Advocate Mr. Aniket Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 21-03-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Phenhara P.S. Case no. 160 of 2023 registered under sections 307, 341, 323, 325, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that the petitioner who happens to be one of his sons along with his wife came to him, abused and assaulted him, thus seriously injuring him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The informant who happens to be his father is under the influence of the petitioner's elder brother and it is over some family dispute
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1325 of 2024(3) dt.21-03-2024 2/2 relating to property that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The injuries have been caused in a manner other than what has been narrated in the FIR and the nature of injuries has been found to be simple. The petitioner is in custody since 4.11.2023. He has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.
5. The prayer for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegations against the petitioner in the FIR, the relationship between the parties and the injuries having been substantiated from the contents of the injury report, 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 after framing of charge, whichever is earlier.
(Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U T