The court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail filed by three petitioners in a case involving offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, declining to grant relief to petitioners 2 and 3 due to allegations of common intention to cause death.
Anticipatory bail application dismissed for petitioners 2 and 3.
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.41135 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2021 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Samrendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
ORAL ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no. 1, has already been arrested. The bail application of petitioner no. 1, is therefore not pressed.
Permission is granted.
Accordingly, the petition on behalf of petitioner no. 1, stands dismissed as not pressed and the petition is now restricted to petitioners no. 2 and 3, respectively.
The petitioners no. 2 and 3 seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in connection with Bihta P.S. Case No. 61 of 2021 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 341,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41135 of 2021(4) dt.17-02-2022 2/2
323,324,379,504,307,506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and lateron Section 302 is also added.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as petitioners no. 2 and 3 are concerned, no specific overt act has been alleged against them. Learned counsel submits that there are cross cases pending with regard to the same incident. Learned counsel further submits that the deceased was a heart patient and has died on account of cardio pulmonary failure.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the informant submits that the injuries has been caused on the head of the deceased which has resulted in cardio pulmonary failure as is apparent from the postmortem report. All of them are part of the unlawful assembly having common intention to cause death.
Having considered all the aspects, taking into consideration the aforesaid, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners no. 2 and 3.
This application is dismissed.
(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J)
Anand Kr.
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners 2 and 3 in the pending criminal case.
Whether lack of specific overt acts alleged against petitioners warrants anticipatory bail.
Ashok Singh
Girija Singh
Brajesh Kumar
The State of Bihar
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
