IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7922 of 2008 BISHWANATH CHAUDHARY Versus STATE OF BIHAR With Cr.Misc. No.7940 of 2008 ANIL KUMAR CHAUDHARY Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 2. 12.5.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in both the cases. Both the cases arise out of the same P.S. case and accordingly they are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners pray for anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation against the petitioner, Bishwanath Chaudhary is that he had given repeated blows with Khanti (a sharp cutting weapon) to the informant of the case as a result of which he received serious injuries on his head and other vital parts. The allegation against the petitioner, Anil Kumar Chaudhary is that he was waving his pistol in the air and exhorting to kill all persons. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is case and counter case on account of political rivalry in the village and the petitioners have been falsely implicated showing them alone to have been identified in the mob of 15-20 persons. It is submitted by learned counsel that although three injuries have been found on the informant but only one injury has been held to be caused by a sharp cutting weapon while the two other injuries are stated to have been caused by 2 hard and blunt substance. It is contended that the same falsifies the stand of the informant. It is further submitted that so far as the petitioner, Anil Kumar Chaudhary is concerned there is no allegation of even firing by him and it is only stated that he was waving his pistol in the air. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that injures have been inflicted upon the head of the informant by the petitioner, Bishwanath Chaudhary and the other two injuries are also on his neck and in between the scapular region. The petitioner, Anil Kumar Chaudhary also was a part of the unlawful assembly, which has inflicted serious injuries on the vital parts even though they have been held to be simple in nature. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not consider it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and their prayer for the same is accordingly rejected. S.Pandey. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)