Heeralal Ram v. The State of Bihar
Court: Patna High Court
Bench: MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN
Judgment date:
Case summary
Patna High Court judgment dated 2024-12-20. Heeralal Ram v. The State of Bihar. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 68053 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No. -33 Year-2024 Thana- MATIYARIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1. Heeralal Ram Son of Chandrika Ram Resident of Village- Sirisiya P. S. - Matiyariya District -West Champaran 2. Lalbabu Ram Son of Chandrika Ram Resident of Village- Sirisiya P. S. - Matiyariya District -West Champaran 3. Guddu Ram Son of Chandrika Ram Resident of Village- Sirisiya P. S. - Matiyariya District -West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dashrath Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 2 20-12-2024 Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2.
The petitioners apprehends their arrest in connection with Matiyariya P. S. Case No. 33 of 2024, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 353, 354, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. As per the FIR, petitioners and other co-accused persons assaulted the police party and made one co-accused namely, Rajesh Ram flee away from the spot. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case. No such Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 68053 of 2024(2) dt. 20-12-2024 2/2 occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is no specific overt act against the petitioners. Petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have no criminal antecedent and petitioner no. 1 has one criminal antecedent. 5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on their behalf is hereby rejected. 7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) shikha/- U T
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.