Dhirendra Baitha @ Virendra Baitha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7495 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-569 Year-2020 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== 1.

Dhirendra Baitha @ Virendra Baitha S/O Juanand Baitha R/O VillageBhagwanpur, P.S.- Parsauni, Distt- Sitamarhi, Bihar-843327. 2.

Akash Baitha S/O Tuntun Baitha R/O Village- Bhagwanpur, P.S.- Parsauni, Distt- Sitamarhi, Bihar-843327.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raghvendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 19-06-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Sitamarhi P.S. Case No. 569 of 2020 dated 27.10.2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 379, 384, 447, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Sitamarhi. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners along with other accused persons said to have damaged the medical clinic of the informant including NICU ward of children. It is further alleged that they demanded rangdari of one lakh from the informant and threatened to shoot him if he fails to do so.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7495 of 2023(3) dt.19-06-2023 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submit that the petitioners have not been named in the F.I.R., the name of the petitioners has been reflected during the course of the investigation on the statement of the witness Nasim Mansuri (the compounder of the said clinic). The petitioners have got no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application. Learned APP for the State opposes the bail petition and submits that the petitioners are also involved in the present case.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T