← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./18076/2015rejected

Manoj Kumar Yadav @ Manoj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2015-07-09Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.18076 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -52 Year- 2015 Thana -BISFI District- MADHUBANI ====================================================== Manoj Kumar Yadav @ Manoj Yadav, Son of Yadubansi Yadav resident of Bisfi Dudhi, P.S.- Bisfi, District- Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER ------------ 09-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bisfi P.S. Case No.52 of 2015 registered under Sections 341, 353, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the C.J.M., Madhubani.

The allegation against the petitioner is to abuse the employees of the office of the Block Development Officer, Bisfi and to disturb them in doing the work as also to give threatening them to kill. There is also allegation of pelting stones at the gate of the house of the Block Development Officer, Bisfi, and giving threatening to him to kill.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18076 of 2015 (3) dt.09-07-2015 2/2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is social worker and has made several complaints against the Block Development Officer, Bisfi, due to that reason, the Block Development Officer, Bisfi, has falsely implicated the petitioner.

It appears from paragraph-3 to this application that there are two more criminal cases against the petitioner. Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within six weeks and pray for regular bail, which shall be considered by the trial court on its own merit without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T