ANIL KUMAR v. The State of Bihar
Court: Patna High Court
Bench: MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
Patna High Court judgment dated 2020-11-09. ANIL KUMAR 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. 19136 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No. -112 Year-2019 Thana- BEUR District- Patna ====================================================== Anil Kumar Son of Late Shiv Kumar Yadav @ Shiv Kumar Rai Resident of Village - Naya Tola, Saristabad, P. S. - Gardanibagh, Dist. - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP For the Informant : Mr. Ram Pravesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 09-11-2020 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Pravesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Binod Kumar, learned APP for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Beur P. S. Case No. 112 of 2019 dated 16. 03. 2019 which was initially instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 325, 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Later with the death of deceased Section 302 IPC was added. During the erection of a boundary wall over a disputed land an occurrence is said to have taken place in which several named persons including the petitioner and many other unnamed persons entered into an altercation with the prosecution party and assaulted one Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 19136 of 2020(4) dt. 09-11-2020 2/3 Daisy Kumari, who died. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case appears to be false in as much as the dispute of the land between the informant and one Arun Kumar led to an altercation but Arun Kumar was not found to be present on the place of occurrence and during the course of investigation his alibi was found to be correct.
Apart from this, the police during the course of investigation has found the implication of six other persons to be suspicious in nature. On these two grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as he has only been named without any specific accusation. However, considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner and others, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to him. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below and seeks bail, the court below shall take into account all relevant facts including what has been stated above and shall pass orders in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the fact that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 19136 of 2020(4) dt. 09-11-2020 3/3 present petition has not been entertained. (Ashutosh Kumar, J) krishna/- U T
Source: Patna High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.