← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14567/2021rejected

Upendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2022-01-31Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 14567 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2020 Thana- SONO District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.

UPENDRA YADAV Son of Late Nundeo Yadav Resident of VillageTahabala, P.S.- Sono, District- Jamui. 2.

Nira Devi W/o Upendra Yadav Resident of Village- Tahabala, P.S.- Sono, District- Jamui.

3.

Soni Devi Daughter of Upendra Yadav Resident of Village- Tahabala, P.S.- Sono, District- Jamui.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umesh Prasad Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 31-01-2022 In view of the order dated 22.10.2021, the application of petitioner no. 1 Upendra Yadav was dismissed as withdrawn.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner nos. 2 and 3 apprehend arrest in connection with Sono P.S. Case No. 49 of 2020 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354, 308 and 504/34 of the I.P.C. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case due to land dispute. Further he submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 14567 of 2021(7) dt.31-01-2022 2/2 petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioners by contending that petitioners are named in the first information report. There is direct allegation of assault against them. Hence, the petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioners is rejected.

shailendra/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T