Kapil Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11671 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-532 Year-2017 Thana- WAJIRGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Kapil Manjhi Son of Late Chandeshwar Manjhi Resident of VillageBhindas, P.S.- Wazirganj, District- Gaya. 2.

Chandar Manjhi @ Chandu Manjhi Son of Late Hari Manjhi Resident of Village- Bhindas, P.S.- Wazirganj, District- Gaya. 3.

Shankar Sao Son of Late Pyare Sao Resident of Village- Bhindas, P.S.- Wazirganj, District- Gaya.

4.

Binod Sao Son of Late Pyare Sao Resident of Village- Bhindas, P.S.- Wazirganj, District- Gaya.

5.

Jamuna Manjhi Son of Akal Manjhi Resident of Village- Bhindas, P.S.- Wazirganj, District- Gaya.

6.

Ganesh Manjhi Son of Jagdish Manjhi Resident of Village- Bhindas, P.S.- Wazirganj, District- Gaya.

7.

Arjun Manjhi Son of Late Kuri Manjhi @ Thakuri Manjhi @ Bhakuri Manjhi Resident of Village- Bhindas, P.S.- Wazirganj, District- Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kunwar Narayan Jamuar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2.

01-07-2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in Wazirganj P.S. Case No. 532 of 2017, corresponding to G.R.No. 7869 of 2017, registered for the offence under Section 307 & other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11671 of 2020(2) dt.01-07-2020 2/2 It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that there is general and omnibus allegation and no specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioners. There is land dispute between the parties, as a result of which, some scuffle took place. In this case, altogether 21 named and 25-30 unknown persons have been made accused.

However, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail application of the petitioners and submitted that these petitioners alongwith others, armed with different weapons, were assaulting one Arun Kumar and when police party came and tried to save the injured, they (accused) also attacked on the police party, in which, two police personnel received grievous injuries on the vital part of the body. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The anticipatory bail application stands dismissed. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J.) anay U T