Sunil Yadav vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2924 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 36638 of 2020
               Arising Out of PS Case No.-117 Year-2020 Thana- SONO District- Jamui
      ======================================================

1. Sunil Yadav, Male, aged about 31 years, Son of Baso @ Basudeo Yadav.

2. Chandan Yadav, Male, aged about 22 years, son of Baso @ Basudeo Yadav.

Both are resident of Village- Chilkakhar, PS Sono (Charkapathar), District- Jamui.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

      For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
      For the State            :        Mr. Amitesh Kumar, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 01-07-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for

the petitioners and Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

petitioner no. 1, Sunil Yadav, has been arrested and, thus, he may

be permitted to withdraw the application on his behalf.

4. In view thereof, as prayed for by learned counsel for

the petitioners, the application stands disposed off as withdrawn as

far as petitioner no. 1, Sunil Yadav is concerned and is restricted

to petitioner no. 2, Chandan Yadav.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36638 of 2020 dt.01-07-2021

5. The petitioner no. 2 apprehends arrest in connection

with Sono (Charkapathar) PS Case No. 117 of 2020 dated

28.05.2020, instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307

and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. The specific allegation against the petitioner no. 2 is

that he assaulted Lalu Yadav of the informant's side by tangi on

the head.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

parties are agnates and there was land dispute and something may

have happened on the spur of the moment, but there was no

intention for the same. It was further submitted that the father of

the petitioner no. 2 has also filed a case for the same incident and

there has been injury on the side of the petitioners also. It was

submitted that the petitioner no. 2 has no criminal antecedent.

8. Learned APP submitted that there is specific and

direct allegation of assault by tangi on the head of Lalu Yadav,

which is corroborated by the injury report in which an incised

wound on the head caused by sharp cutting weapon has been

noted by the doctor. It was submitted that the petitioner no. 2

having inflicted tangi blow on the head itself indicates that the

intention was to cause serious injury and, thus, the petitioner no. 2

does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36638 of 2020 dt.01-07-2021

9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner no. 2,

Chandan Yadav.

10. Accordingly, the petition on behalf of petitioner no.

2, Chandan Yadav, stands dismissed.

11. However, in view of submission of learned counsel

for the petitioner no. 2, it is observed that in the event the

petitioner no. 2 appears before the Court below and prays for bail,

the same shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with

law, without being prejudiced by the present order.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T