Suresh Sah v. The State Of Bihar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail refused
anticipatory bail is rejected
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 307, 323, 325, 337, 341, 379, 504
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Considering the allegation of assault supported by the 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2042 of 2013 (2) dt.22-01-2013 injury report showing injury on head, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, the prayer for anticipatory bail is…
Judgment
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar ` Alok ‘ For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramesh Chandra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 2 22-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petition for anticipatory bail has been filed on behalf of the petitioners who apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under sections 341,323,325,337,379,307 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegation is with regard to assault by the petitioners using bricks and Fatta causing injury on head, back and legs of the informant.
Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to injury report to show that the injuries are simple in nature.
Operative part
Considering the allegation of assault supported by the 2 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2042 of 2013 (2) dt.22-01-2013 injury report showing injury on head, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. Naresh/- (Vikash Jain, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: anticipatory bail is rejected
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 307, 323, 325, 337, 341, 379, 504.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.