← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./80446/2019bail rejected

Amit Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

2022-01-17Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80446 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2019 Thana- GOPALPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== AMIT THAKUR Son of Baharan Thakur Resident of Village - Barnaiya Raja Ram, P.S.- Gopalpur, Distt - Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pankaj Kumar Dubey, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar No. 2, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 17-01-2022 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through video conferencing.

The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 95 of 2019 registered for offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, nine accused persons named in the FIR, including the present petitioner badly assaulted the informant and his wife Champa Devi. The allegation against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80446 of 2019(4) dt.17-01-2022 2/2 present petitioner is that he inflicted knife blow on the wife of the informant with intention to kill her.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is case and counter case and the petitioner's side have also been injured in the counter case i.e. Gopalpur P.S. Case No.92 of 2019.

There is specific allegation against the present petitioner that he inflicted knife blow on Champa Devi, the wife of informant. The injury report shows that Champa Devi has sustained grievous injuries. As such, the petitioner is not entitled for privilege of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the prayer of petitioner for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey , J) Mahesh/- U T