High CourtsSingle Bench

Ajay Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 21 May 2021 · Citation: (2021) 05 PAT CK 0056

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 308, 323, 324, 341, 354B
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 34525 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 324 words
1.

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2.

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, No. 1, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter

referred to as the ‘APP’) for the State.

3.

The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Kanti PS Case No. 737 of 2019 dated 30.09.2019, instituted under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308,

354-B of the Indian Penal Code.

4.

The allegation against the petitioner is that he had tried to force the informant to compromise the earlier case filed against him by her, but when she

refused, he had assaulted her and when the mother of the informant came to intervene, the petitioner is said to have inflicted farsa blow on her head

leading to deep injury.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is the cousin brother of the informant and there is land dispute between them. It was submitted

that only to put pressure this case has been instituted.

6.

Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that witnesses have supported the occurrence. Further, it was submitted that there is a 5 inches long

cut wound in the middle portion of the head of the mother of the informant, which clearly corroborates the allegation that the petitioner had assaulted

her by means of farsa. Further, it was submitted that the petitioner has two other criminal cases against him being Ahiyapur PS Case No.1058 of 2018

and Sahebganj PS Case No. 449 of 2018. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation is also very natural and believable that the petitioner had come

to coerce the informant to compromise the case against him.

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.

9.

Interim protection given to the petitioner under dated 26.03.2021 stands vacated.