Sheonandan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6374 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2024 Thana- Tetiyabumber District- Munger ====================================================== Sheonandan Yadav S/o Ganu Yadav R/o Village- Bangama, P.S.- Harpur, District- Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Umanath Mishra, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application for grant of anticipatory bail arises out of Tetiyabumber P.S. Case No. 14 of 2024, disclosing offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 188, 323, 324, 307, 332, 333, 337, 338, 427, 424 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case as per the First Information Report, on 22.03.2024, the police got secret information that some persons were indulged in selling liquor, proceeded towards the place of occurrence and saw that three persons were selling liquor near the Kharui situated in the village. On seeing the police party, they started fleeing away. However, they were caught and from their possession 21 litres illicit liquor was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6374 of 2025(2) dt.18-03-2025 2/3 recovered, namely, Alok Yadav, Sheonandan Yadav (petitioner) and Tuni Yadav. Upon enquiry, they disclosed that they used to bring liquor from outside and sell it in the village. When the police put them in the vehicle, they started abusing and making noise. Thereafter, 30-40 persons armed with lathi danda attacked the police party and the crowd forcibly snatched the seized liquor from the police and freed them from the police custody and they also damaged the police vehicle and broken its glasses.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of secret information and no such incident has taken place. The liquor was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner, but the same has been recovered from the Kharui situated in the village. He further submits that similarly situated person Alok Yadav has been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.03.2025, passed in Criminal Misc. No. 7914 of 2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the First Information Report and the order passed by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6374 of 2025(2) dt.18-03-2025 3/3 co-ordinate Bench, it appears that petitioner along with other accused persons were arrested by the police while the police was taking them on the vehicle they were forcibly freed bythe accused person from police custody. Once a person has been arrested, the anticipatory bail cannot be said to be maintainable. This aspect was not placed before the co-ordinate Bench which granted anticipatory bail to the co-accused. As such claim of parity raised by the petitioner is not acceptable.
7. Attack by mob on police while on official duty undermines the safety and security of law enforcement agency, incident of mob violence against law enforcement agency has become order of the day now in the State which can be very dangerous, often escalating tensions and compromising public safety, accordingly, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail and the same is rejected.
8. This application is accordingly, rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) Siwani/- U T