Anil Rai Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Nath Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Zainul Abedin Mr. Diwakar Mr. Deepak Kumar Mr. Shivam Kumar Mr. Sudhakar Ranjan Mr. Rahul Sharma Mr. Prashant Sharma ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 01-07-2024

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

¶13

The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 354(B), 379, 504 and 506/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that the

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16385 of 2024(4) dt.01-07-2024 2/3

¶16

F.I.R. does not even remotely disclose the reason for the occurrence that as to why the petitioner came to the house of the informant and started assaulting. It is next submitted that petitioner and Chandan (brother in-law of the informant) were working at Hyderabad and they were known to each other from before and petitioner had given some money as loan to Chandan Pandey and the same was not being returned.

¶17

It is also submitted that petitioner and Chandan were from the same village, as such, Chandan had called the petitioner to his house and where on account of dispute relating to money, an altercation took place and petitioner was assaulted. It is next submitted that even petitioner assaulted the side of the informant. It is further submitted that this perhaps explains why the informant in the F.I.R. does not even remotely suggest the reason for the occurrence. It is next submitted that injury suffered by the injured is simple in nature which amply demonstrates that petitioner never had any intention of committing a serious occurrence.

¶18

Learned counsel for the informant along with learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application, but then, the learned counsel for the informant does not dispute the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16385 of 2024(4) dt.01-07-2024 3/3

¶20

petitioner that injury suffered by the injured is simple in nature.

¶21

Considering the submissions made by the learned

¶22

counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M., Ara, Bhojpur in connection with Chauri P. S. Case No.121 of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

¶23

The application stands allowed.

¶24

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶25

vikash/-

¶26

U T

Anil Rai v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Rai v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vibhu Kumar @ Bibhu Vikash Vs the State of Bihar

Gautam Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Chhotelal Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Santosh Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Sujit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Babu Paswan Vs The State of Bihar