Mithlesh Yadav @ Mithlesh Kumar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.15866 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -82 Year- 2014 Thana -ASARGANJ District- MUNGER ======================================================
1. Mithlesh Yadav @ Mithlesh Kumar Son of Shri Naresh Yadav
2. Mahesh Yadav Son of Late Banarsi Yadav
3. Munchun Yadav Son of Mahesh Yadav All Resident of village - Adras, P.S. Asarganj, District - Munger .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prem Chand Yadav For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madan Kumar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-09-2015 Initially the case diary of Asarganj P.S. Case No. 82 of 2014 was called vide order dated 16.04.2015 but since the application stood dismissed for non-prosecution, the case diary has been returned, thereafter the present application has been restored. In the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to call for the case diary again.
The petitioners are apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 448, 342, 324, 307, 379 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that when the informant was in her house, the sons of the brother of the husband of the informant came and took her to the door when these petitioners caught hold
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15866 of 2015 (4) dt.02-09-2015 2/2 of the informant and co-accused Sugiya Devi sprinkled kerosene oil when co-accused Naresh Yadav set the informant ablaze, subsequently the informant succumbed to the injuries. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that since the petitioners are the agnates of the husband of the victim, hence they have been roped in the present case. Considering the fact that the FIR is based on the fardbeyan of the victim and the accusation is specific against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Amrendra/- U T