Suket Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20975 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-259 Year-2020 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== 1.

SUKET KUMAR SON OF RAMASANYOG RAY R/O VILLAGEKODARIA, P.S.- RUNNISAIDPUR, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. 2.

RANJIT KUMAR SON OF YOGENDRA RAI R/O VILLAGEKODARIA, P.S.- RUNNISAIDPUR, DISTRICT- SITAMARHI. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Virendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 27-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Runnisaidpur P.S. Case No. 259 of 2020 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 354, 379 and 307/34 of the I.P.C. 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 against the petitioners.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioners by contending that petitioners are named in the first information report. There is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20975 of 2021(2) dt.27-01-2022 2/2 specific allegation of molestation, snatching and assault in the first informant report against the petitioners. Further he contended that the injury report also corroborates the same. Hence, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioners is rejected.

shailendra/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T