✦ Patna High Court

Rabindra Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 66. Considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and the bail petition as against them is accordingly rejected. If the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 surrender before the learned…

Judgment

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. B.N.Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar II, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 2 08-02-2013 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

#2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with alleged offences under Sections 341, 323,324, 379, 504, 307/34 IPC registered in connection with Baniyapur P.S.Case No. 283 of 2012.

#3. The allegation is with regard to assault on the informant and his wife and other family members by the accused persons and some others.

#4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties are agnates and the dispute is with regard to right of passage. It is further submitted that the injuries are simple in nature. Moreover, petitioner no. 3 has been suffering from Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5685 of 2013 (2) dt.08-02-2013 2 Hepatitis B from July, 2011 and is under regular treatment since then. Besides no specific injury is attributed at the hands of petitioner no. 3. It is also submitted that the co-accused Rajendra Prasad has since been granted regular bail by this Court.

#5. As regards petitioner nos. 1 and 2 there is specific allegation that petitioner no.1 caused injury and cut on the head of the informant by assault with farsa whereas petitioner no. 2 is said to have caused injury on the upper lip of informant’s wife with sword. The injury reports support these allegations. Though the injuries are said to be simple in nature yet they are on the vital parts of the body.

#6. Considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and the bail petition as against them is accordingly rejected. If the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of four weeks hereof their petition for regular bail may be considered on its own merits.

#7. As regard petitioner no. 3 considering his medical condition and the fact that there is no specific injury which is attributed to have been caused by him in the event of arrest or surrender by petitioner no.3 namely, Prabhunath Prasad, within a Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5685 of 2013 (2) dt.08-02-2013 3 period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chpara, Saran in connection with Baniyapur P.S.Case No. 283 of 2012, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. (Vikash Jain, J) Chandran

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Patna High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 5685 of 2013). ← Search more judgments