Patna High CourtCR. MISC./10835/2022dismissed

Sunil Sao v. The State Of Bihar

2022-04-27Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10835 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-316 Year-2021 Thana- RAMKRISHNANAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

SUNIL SAO Son of Mahesh Sao Resident of Village- Aadampur, Police Station- Kalpa, District- Jehanabad, presently residing at Bhurkunda, Police Station- Patratu, District- Ramgarh, State- Jharkhand. 2.

Radhey Shyam Sao Son of Mahesh Sao Resident of Village- Aadampur, Police Station- Kalpa, District- Jehanabad, presently residing at Bhurkunda, Police Station- Patratu, District- Ramgarh, State- Jharkhand. 3.

Bhola Kumar @ Ramesher Kumar Son of Late Vinesh Sao Resident of Village- Aadampur, Police Station- Kalpa, District- Jehanabad, presently residing at Bhurkunda, Police Station- Patratu, District- Ramgarh, StateJharkhand. 4.

Kundan Kumar S/o Late Vinesh Sao Resident of Village- Aadampur, Police Station- Kalpa, District- Jehanabad, presently residing at Bhurkunda, Police Station- Patratu, District- Ramgarh, State- Jharkhand. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 27-04-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to remove defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

The petitioners pray for grant of anticipatory bail in Krishna Nagar P.S. Case No. 316/2021 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147/148/149/302/506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10835 of 2022(3) dt.27-04-2022 2/2 In view of the fact that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. as the assailants of the deceased, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Saif/- U T