Ranjit Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84638 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-370 Year-2019 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.

RANJIT SAHNI Son of Sobi Sahni @ Sogi Sahni @ Somit Sahni Resident of Village - Purainiya, P.S.- Minapur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur. 2.

Vijay Sahni Son of Sobhit Sahni Resident of Village - Purainiya, P.S.- Minapur, Distt.- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pancham Lal Jaiswal, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-06-2020 Heard both sides through Video Conferencing.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Minapur P.S. Case No.370 of 2019 registered under Sections 324, 326, 307, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant alleged that petitioner no.1 requested her husband to give Rs.10,000/- but her husband refused to pay on the ground that petitioner no.1 had earlier borrowed loan but the same was not paid. On such petitioner no.1 is said to have assaulted the husband of the informant with knife on his testicle and petitioner no.2 is alleged to have assaulted the husband of the informant with lathi on his head. The accused persons also assaulted the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84638 of 2019(4) dt.19-06-2020 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all allegations are false and concocted. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case on account of land dispute. The petitioners are responsible persons of the society but it appears from perusal of the F.I.R. and the case-diary that all the witnesses have reiterated the facts that petitioner no.1 inflicted knife blow on the testicle of the husband of the informant and petitioner no.2 assaulted with lathi on the head of the husband of the informant. Injury no.2 is found to be grievous. Having considered the facts and the nature of allegations made against the petitioners, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

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