Sujan Yadav @ Surendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 16742 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2020 Thana- ROH District- Nawada ====================================================== 1.

Sujan Yadav @ Surendra Kumar, Male, aged about 36 years, Son of Madhu Yadav.

2.

Sarvesh Kumar @ Vikash Kumar, Male, aged about 22 years, Son of Maheshwar Yadav.

3.

Navlesh Yadav, Male aged about 32 years, Son of Jawahir Yadav. 4.

Mithlesh Yadav, Male, aged about 28 years, Son of Late Kailu Yadav. 5.

Gaya Yadav, Male, aged about 45 years, Son of Nathun Yadav. 6.

Mahendra Yadav, Male, aged about 55 years, Son of Govind Yadav. 7.

Garib Yadav, Male, aged about 52 years, Son of Suko Yadav. 8.

Ghanshyam Yadav, Male, aged about 55 years, Son of Natho Yadav. 9.

Sharma Yadav @ Sharwan Kumar @ Ram Kumar, aged about 30 years, Son of Hari Yadav.

10.

Chulbul Yadav @ Pankaj Yadav, Male, aged about 23 years, Son of Ghanshyam Yadav.

11.

Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Yadav (Male), aged about 26 years, Son of Satyendra Yadav.

12.

Ramesh Yadav @ Ramesh Prasad Nirala, Male, aged about 42 years, Son of Launga Yadav.

13.

Ranjeet Yadav @ Ranjeet Kumar, Male, aged about 26 years, Son of Umesh Yadav.

All Residents of Village - Mahkar, P.S.- Roh, District- Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arjun Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Khurshid Anwar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 12-01-2022 Heard the parties through video conferencing. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in connection with Roh P.S. Case No. 124 of 2020 instituted for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16742 of 2021(3) dt.12-01-2022 2/2 the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,149, 447, 448, 504, 506, 341, 323, 307, 269, 354, 380 of the Indian Penal Code, 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the family members have been implicated in the FIR with regard to the incident, wherein complaint has also been registered by the accused petitioners and injuries have been caused on both sides. Taking into consideration the fact that co-accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, I am inclined to allow the prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioners, in the event of arrest they shall be released on anticipatory bail, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Anand Kr.

U T