Raghunash Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17962 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-928 Year-2020 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran ====================================================== 1.

RAGHUNASH RAI S/o- Panchi Rai Resident of Village- Marhowrah, P.S.- Marhowrah, District- Saran.

2.

S.P. Yadav @ S.P. Kumar Son of Raghuvansh Rai Resident of VillageMarhowrah, P.S.- Marhowrah, District- Saran. 3.

Guddu Kumar @ Guddu Son of Raghuvansh Rai Resident of VillageMarhowrah, P.S.- Marhowrah, District- Saran. 4.

Billu Kumar @ Suddu Son of Raghuvansh Rai Resident of VillageMarhowrah, P.S.- Marhowrah, District- Saran. 5.

Suddu Kumar @ Suddu Son of Raghuvansh Rai Resident of VillageMarhowrah, P.S.- Marhowrah, District- Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Basant Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 06-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Marhowrah P.S. Case No. 928 of 2020 registered under Sections 447, 341, 323, 387, 379, 427 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. There is general and omnibus allegation

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17962 of 2021(2) dt.06-01-2022 2/2 against them.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioners by contending that during the course of investigation, the informant and other witnesses have stated about the involvement of the accused petitioners in the alleged occurrence.

There is allegation against the petitioners that they entered into the informant's shop and took out Rs. 40,000/- from his Galla and demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- as Rangdari. Hence, the petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Having considered the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioners is rejected. utkarsh/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T