Anrudh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.51926 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -179 Year- 2014 Thana -MANSI District- KHAGARIA ======================================================
1. Anrudh Yadav son of Late Singho Yadav Resident of village - Chak Hussaini Khutiya, Police Station - Mansi, District - Khagaria .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Najmul Hoda, Adv. For the Informant : Mrs. Sudha Ambastha, Adv. For the State : (Spl. P.P.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-03-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mansi P.S. Case No. 179 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under sections 436 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act.
According to the prosecution case, the petitioner is alleged to have sprinkled kerosene oil and set the hutment of the informant on fire, as a result of which several articles kept therein were burnt to ashes.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity and the alleged hutment was not a residential
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51926 of 2014 (3) dt.04-03-2015 2/2 house of the petitioner and as such the ingredients of the offence punishable under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted in the present case.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. She has submitted that prior to the present incident, the petitioner had tried to outrage the modesty of the inmates of the house of the informant for which a separate case has been instituted and immediately after he was released on bail in the earlier case, he has committed the present occurrence.
Be that as it may, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the present. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.
However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charges. (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Pradeep/- U T