Dismissed

Mahendra Prasad Yadav @ Mahendra Prasad @ Mahendra Yadav v. the State of Bihar through the Distritc Magistrate, Nawada and Anr.

Patna HC24 Apr 2019CR. MISC./5611/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to O.P. No. 2 citing injury suppression, new occurrence, and FIR delay. Court found discrepancies in injury report timing and lacked investigation evidence, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition against cancellation of anticipatory bail dismissed. No bail to be cancelled.

Mahendra Prasad Yadav @ Mahendra Prasad @ Mahendra Yadav Vs… — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5611 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-208 Year-2018 Thana- RAJAOLI District- Nawada

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Mahendra Prasad Yadav @ Mahendra Prasad @ Mahendra Yadav, S/o Baleshwar Prasad @ Baleshwar Yadav Resident of Village- Karanpur, P.S.Rajauli, District- Nawada.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Nawada.

¶8

Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Prasad, S/o Baleshwar Prasad @ Baleswar Yadav Resident of Village-Karanpur, P.S.- Rajauli, District- Nawada.

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance :

¶11

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kumar Manglam For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Upendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

4 24-04-2019

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶15

APP for the State.

¶16

None turned up on behalf of the O.P. No. 2 despite service of notice.

¶17

The petitioner has filed this petition for cancellation of bail granted to the O.P. No. 2 by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2018 with the case that the O.P. No. 2 has obtained the aforesaid bail order suppressing the fact of sustaining injury by the petitioner (informant) by submitting that the petitioner has not sustained any injury in the occurrence. But, as a matter of fact, the petitioner has sustained four injuries out of which one of the injury is incised wound caused by sharp cut weapon and

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5611 of 2019(4) dt.24-04-2019 2/3

¶19

rest are by hard blunt substance and nature of injury has been opined by the doctor as dangerous to life. Moreover, after taking bail, the O.P. No. 2 has again committed the occurrence against the petitioner and his family members. Regarding the same, the S.P. Nawada has been informed by the petitioner vide letter dated 05.01.2019. Hence, in the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the bail of the O.P. No. 2 is liable to be cancelled.

¶20

O.P. No. 2 did not file any rejoinder to the aforesaid petition.

¶21

From perusal of record, it appears that the O.P. No. 2 has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 19.12.2018 on his submission that the petitioner (informant) has not sustained any injury in the occurrence and that the occurrence is of 26.06.2018, but the F.I.R. has been lodged after inordinate and abnormal delay of three days i.e. on 29.06.2018 without assigning any plausible reason for the aforesaid delay. Petitioner (informant) by filing the injury report tried to persuade the court that he has sustained altogether four injuries including one incised wound and one lacerated wound on the head and all the injuries have been opined by the doctor as dangerous to life. But, the petitioner is said to have sustained aforesaid injuries during the course of occurrence which took

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5611 of 2019(4) dt.24-04-2019 3/3

¶23

place on 26.06.2018 while he was examined by the doctor S.C. Sinha, M.O., Sadar Hospital Rajauli, Nawada on 14.07.2018 i.e. after 18 days of the occurrence. Though, as per the submission of the petitioner, he was immediately rushed to the aforesaid hospital and from where he was referred to P.M.C.H., but the aforesaid injury report indicates that the petitioner was examined by the said doctor after 18 days of the occurrence which creates serious doubt about sanctity of the injury report. Annexure-2 filed by the petitioner indicates that he has given information to S.P. Nawada on 05.01.2019 to the effect that the accused persons were extending threatening of slitting the neck of the entire family of the petitioner, but that appears mere application of the petitioner and there is no investigation report of police officer on the said petition in vindication of the aforesaid allegation made by the petitioner.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any substance in the aforesaid petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶25

(Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J)

¶26

rohit/-

¶27

U T

Mahendra Prasad Yadav @ Mahendra Prasad @ Mahendra Yadav v. the State of Bihar through the Distritc Magistrate, Nawada and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Prasad Yadav @ Mahendra Prasad @ Mahendra Yadav v. the State of Bihar through the Distritc Magistrate, Nawada and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Nazir Vs The State of Bihar

Suresh Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Akhilesh Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Shiv Kumar @ Manish Kumar @ Manish Vs The State of Bihar

Binda Devi and Ors. Vs Naresh Nonia and Ors.

Arbind Kumar Vs The State of Bihar