The Patna High Court rejected the petitioners' prayer for anticipatory bail in connection with PS Case No.141 of 2019 involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323 IPC. The court was not inclined to extend privilege despite submissions regarding false implication.
Prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20135 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-141 Year-2019 Thana- VIDYAPATINAGAR DistrictSamastipur
======================================================
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh- Advocate Mr. Rakesh Prabhat- Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh- A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
... ... Opposite Party/s
ORAL ORDER
well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State through video conferencing.
Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Vidhyapati Nagar P. S. Case No.141 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 341/ 34 of the I.P.C.
Petitioner no.1 is said to have given several dagger blow to informant whereas petitioner no.2 pierced dagger into the abdomen of injured Kundan Kumar.
Submission on behalf of petitioners is that injureds
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20135 of 2020(2) dt.18-08-2020 2/2
have sustained simple injury and according to fard-bayan of the informant, the alleged occurrence took place on account of land dispute. He further submits that as a matter of fact, no such occurrence, as alleged in fard-bayan of informant, did ever take place and the petitioners have been implicated in false case on account of land dispute.
Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions of the parties, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioners and, accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail stand rejected.
However, it is made clear that this order shall not cause any prejudice to concerned Court at the time of consideration of the regular bail application of the petitioners.
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)
vikash/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners implicated in offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 IPC?
Whether the alleged occurrence took place as per the Fard-bayan or was a false case filed on account of land dispute?
Krishna Kumar Singh @ Kanhaiya Kumar @ Kanhaiya
Suraj Kumar @ Manish @ Maniya
The State of Bihar
Hemant Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
