Patna High CourtCR. MISC./21767/2021rejected

Sri Bhagwan Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

2022-01-28Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21767 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-382 Year-2020 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur ====================================================== 1.

SRI BHAGWAN PANDEY Son of Late Dev Sharan Pandewy Resident of Village- Badaki Sanadiya, Police Station- Ara Muffasil, District- Bhojpur. 2.

MUKESH PANDEY Son of Sri Bhagwan Pandey Resident of VillageBadaki Sanadiya, Police Station- Ara Muffasil, District- Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gopal Govind Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Abhay Kumar Pandey Mr. Arvind Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 28-01-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State.

Petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Ara Muffasil P.S. Cases No. 382 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under section 341, 323, 324, 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. As a matter of fact, no such occurrence has ever taken place. The allegations levelled against these petitioners are general and omnibus in nature. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21767 of 2021(2) dt.28-01-2022 2/2 Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State assisted by the counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for bail and submits that during investigation witnesses have supported the prosecution and have taken the name of these petitioners as the assailants. Petitioner, therefore, does not deserve to be granted the privilege of bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T