Jyotish Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1351 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32824 of 2020
  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2020 Thana- BRAHMPURA District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================

Jyotish Kumar (Male) aged about 20 years, Son of Rajesh Mahto @ Rajesh Mahato, Resident of Village - Brahmpura Nunfar Jagran Chowk, P.S.- Brahmpura, District - Muzaffarpur.

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

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

For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Chandra Shekhar Anand, Advocate
For the State           :       Mr. Md. Arif, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 09-03-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Chandra Shekhar Anand, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Arif, learned Additional Public

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

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Brahmpura PS Case No. 77 of 2020 dated 16.03.2020, instituted

under Sections 323/504/506/341/379/307 of the Indian Penal

Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioner and another

person is of intercepting the informant and specifically against

the petitioner that he had assaulted the informant with iron rod

on the head and face and also snatched Rs. 2,000/-.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32824 of 2020 dt.09-03-2021

is a painter and on the date of occurrence he was in his house

and has been falsely implicated. It was further submitted that the

informant himself is a quarrelsome person and is a habitual

taker of drugs. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has

no criminal antecedent.

6. Learned APP submitted that there is injury found on

the head of the informant as there was stitching wound, which

clearly indicates that it was on the vital part and serious in

nature.

7. 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.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR U T