Rohit Yadav @ Rohit Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18453 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-503 Year-2022 Thana- BAHADURPUR District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Rohit Yadav @ Rohit Kumar Yadav Son Of Mahesh Yadav R/V- Abdullapur, P.S- Bahadurpur, Dist- Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Girish Chandra Jha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Dinesh Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 26-06-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 503 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 324, 302, 427, 380 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Darbhanga.
As per the prosecution case, all the FIR named accused persons including the petitioner armed with various weapon arrived at the house of the informant and inflicted knife blow upon the mother of the informant. Thereafter, they committed theft of household articles.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18453 of 2023(3) dt.26-06-2023 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that the mother of the informant is an old lady and she met her nature death and due to old enmity the petitioner was implicated in this case. The petitioner has got three criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application. Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the petitioner is also involved in the present case and postmortem report supports the prosecution case. Hence, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T