Bharat Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85253 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2019 Thana- BISFI District- Madhubani ====================================================== Bharat Yadav S/o Sri Chandeshwar Yadav R/o Village- Bhatara Ghat, P.S.- Bisfi, Dist- Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashank Shekhar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 18-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The instant application for regular bail has been filed by the petitioner in connection with Bisfi P.S. Case No.44 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under sections 147, 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dayan Act [Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practice Act, 1999].

As per allegation in the FIR, it is stated that as a result of altercation between the families of the informant and the accused persons, the petitioner is stated to have been given a blow with iron rod on the right hand of the informant. It is further stated that he gave another blow with iron rod on the head of his father in law, Vidya Nand Yadav causing grievous

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85253 of 2019(3) dt.18-03-2020 2/2 injuries on his head.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute between the parties, as would be evident from the F.I.R., was of a trivial nature. Even as per the allegations there is no repetition of blow on the father in law of the informant. The petitioner is in custody since 6.11.2019. The application for bail has been opposed by learned APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner together with injury report that has transpired in course of the investigation, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and as such his application for bail is rejected. However, if so advised, the petitioner may renew his prayer after six months.

(Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash/- U T