IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr. Misc. No.5620 of 2010 AVINASH PANDEY, son of Chandra Shekhar Pandey Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 3/ 15.04.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State as well as informant. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 307, 302, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submits that the informant is own aunt of the petitioner. He submits that the informant had alleged that on a trivial issue, this petitioner along with others armed with spade and Mungri, came and started assaulting her son Pawan Pandey. It is alleged that Vikash Pandey @ Gopal assaulted with Mungri on the head whereas this petitioner assaulted with the wooden portion of spade. Learned counsel submits that there is land dispute between them. He further submits that in the F.I.R., it is alleged that Pawan Pandey was taken to Madhubani hospital for treatment and there is no piece of paper in respect of treatment. He further submits that though the Police Station is very close, still no F.I.R. was lodged either proceeding to the hospital or even after returning from hospital. He further submits that post-mortem report shows only one injury. Counsel for the informant submits that the petitioner is a named accused, who also assaulted the deceased with wooden portion of spade. As petitioner is named in the First Information Report and - 2 - having also participated in the occurrence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. However, if petitioner surrenders before the court below (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani in connection with Rahika P.S. case no. 108 of 2009) and seek regular bail within six weeks from today, the same would be disposed of on its own merit and also taking into consideration that Vikash Pandey, who has played a major role has been allowed bail by a bench of this Court. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)