Dinesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14095 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2019 Thana- GAMAHARIYA District- Madhepura ====================================================== 1.

Dinesh Yadav, aged about 27 years, Gender-Male, S/o Sita Ram Yadav 2.

Sitaram Yadav, aged about 45 years, Gender-Male, S/o Late Neti Yadav 3.

Khattar Yadav, aged about 38 years, Gender-Male, S/o Late Neti Yadav All residents of Village and P.S.- Gambharia, District- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Murli Dhar For the Informant :

Mr. Vikram Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 08-06-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State as also counsel for the Informant through virtual court proceeding.

In this case, the petitioners are seeking bail in connection with Gamharia P.S. Case No. 63 of 2019 registered for offences under sections 147/148/149/341/323/307/427 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation has been made that all the accused persons have assaulted the Informant and his family members mercilessly. Soon thereafter, all the injured carried to the PHC Gamhariya and seeing there conditions, they were referred to Madhepura for better treatment.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14095 of 2020(2) dt.08-06-2020 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a case and counter case from both sides. So, the petitioners should be granted bail.

Counsel for the Informant submits that before institution of the present case, earlier a case was lodged by the Informant as they have entered into the house in drunken condition. They were sent to jail but, after coming out of the jail, they commit the same offence and they assaulted in such a manner that all the family members of the Informant received serious injury and they were admitted in the hospital. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Informant side is very influential and he has managed the police station and, at the instance of the police station, the petitioners are implicated in a false case.

Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case as also the petitioners having criminal antecedent, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners, above named, is rejected.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) rishi/- U T