Dheeraj Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.5657 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2018 Thana- AURANGABAD TOWN DistrictAurangabad ====================================================== Dheeraj Pandey Son of Sri Yagya Narayan Pandey Resident of Village and Post Office- Deo, Police Station- Deo, District- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Saket Gupta For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 01-02-2019 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Town P.S. case No. 95 of 2018 registered under Section 147, 148, 149, 337, 307 and other minor Sections of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The informant alleged that on 26.03.2018 he along with police officials was escorting Ramnavmi procession taken out by Ramnavmi Puja Samiti, Block Colony, Satyendra Nagar and other Puja Samitis but the Muslim community people started pelting stones. The members of procession also started pelting stones on the Muslim community thereafter the members of procession rum amok and created panic at different places of the town.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5657 of 2019(2) dt.01-02-2019 2/2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was granted bail in Town P.S. case No. 102 of 2018. The petitioner is, of course, named in the FIR but no specific allegation is made against the petitioner. The petitioner is a press reporter but it appears from perusal of the records that almost all the accused persons got regular bail. The petitioner and others are alleged to have run amok, ransacked entire town and set ablaze different establishments and shops on account of communal frenzy.

Considering the facts aforesaid and nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T