PATNA HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON KAMRUL JAMA V/S THE STATE OF BIHAR

PATNA, India, April 23 -- Patna High Court issued the following order on March 23:

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 303(2) and 352 of the BNS.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that he saw his agnates filling soil on the disputed land and on objection petitioner assualted him by rod causing fracture of his right leg and when Rani came to save the informant accused Rehan and Rizwan assualted her by knife causing injury on eye and Rubina snatched her gold chain while accused also assaulted Md. Zaheer and Akbar who came to save him by lathi and danda.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant on account of dispute relating to land. It is further submitted that though there is allegation of assaulting the informant by rod but then the assault is not on vital part of the body rather is on leg. It is next submitted that informant alleges that Rehan and Rizwan assaulted Rani by knife causing injury near the ear but then petitioner is not alleged to have assaulted Rani by knife.

5. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the injury suffered by the informant on leg has been opined to be grievous as on account of assault fracture was caused. It is further submitted that though petitioner is not alleged to have assaulted Rani by knife but then his presence at the place of occurrence emboldened Rehan and Rizwan to commit the occurrence of assault by knife.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Aurai P.S. Case No. 135 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur East/Successor Court.

7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.