Sunarman Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11578 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2021 Thana- PALANWA District- East Champaran ====================================================== SUNARMAN YADAV Son of Late Jokhan Yadav Resident of Village- Tapasi Parsauna, P.S.- Palanwa, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey No.5 For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 14-09-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Palanwa P.S. Case No. 90 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 354, 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, the co-accused including the petitioner badly assaulted the father of the informant and when the mother of the informant went to rescue him, the accused persons also assaulted her. His father was referred to Sadar Hospital, Motihari and thereafter he referred to Patna. He died in the way of Patna. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11578 of 2022(2) dt.14-09-2022 2/2 three FIRs have been lodged for the same occurrence. Accused Nandu Sah has also lodged counter case which is registered as Palanwa P.S. Case No. 87 of 2021.

The learned Addl.P.P., Shri Narendra Kumar Singh has submitted that one Arjun Sah was an accused in Mahila P.S. Case No. 37 of 2021 that case was lodged with an allegation that co-accused Arjun Sah and other three co-accused persons after kidnapping the daughter of the deceased had committed rape upon her. In that case the petitioner was also an accused. There was allegation against him that he attempted to rescue those accused persons. The petitioner is named in the FIR, as per allegation, he is also one of the assailants of the deceased. Prior to that case the mother of the informant has lodged a case of kidnapping and rape of her daughter. As such, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T