Sri Sudhir Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.4739 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2018 Thana- MAGADH UNIVERSITY District- Gaya ====================================================== Sri Sudhir Yadav, son of Basudeo Yadav, resident of village- Chotaki Parariya, P.S.- Magadh University, distt. Gaya.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. Sanjay Kumar Ranjan, son of Ram Swaroop Yadav @ Master resident of village Saxena More Root Institute, P.S.- Magadh University Distt.- Gaya.

3. Dhananjay Kumar @ Chhotu Singh, son of Chandra Bhushan singh resident of village- Rajapur , P.S.- Bodhgaya, Distt.- Gaya.

4. Tinku Singh, son of Raj Kumar resident of village- Barki Babhani, P.S.- Magadh University, Distt. Gaya.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bibhuti Narayan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mohammed Arif ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 30-01-2019 This application has been filed for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 vide order dated 1.12.2018 by learned Sessions Judge-VIII, Gaya in A.B.P. No. 306 of 2018.3694 of 2018.

Main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that learned Sessions Judge has stated that the injuries are simple in nature but the injuries are grievous and further contention is that case of the petitioner stands on similar footing as that of co-accused who has been granted bail, whereas other accused has been granted bail and not anticipatory bail. Heard learned APP also and perused the record and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.4739 of 2019(2) dt.30-01-2019 2/2 from perusal of record it appears that there is no suppression of fact by the opposite parties, rather learned court below after perusal of paragraph-54 of the case diary has mentioned that injuries are simple in nature. Considering the above it appears that it may be due to some mistake on the part of learned court below, whereas there is no allegation against opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 of suppression fact. As such I find no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U T