← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./18500/2015rejected

Urani Yadav @ Udani Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

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

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18500 of 2015 (3) dt.09-07-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.18500 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -41 Year- 2011 Thana -KOTHI District- GAYA ====================================================== URANI YADAV @ UDANI YADAV, SON OF VAJAN YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MANJHOULI, P.S.- KOTHI, DISTRICTGATA. .... .... PETITIONER/S

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nirmala Kumari(App) ====================================================== 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 Kothi P.S. Case No. 41 of 2011 registered under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act, Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act and Sections 10, 11, 13(1)A and 13(1)B of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 pending in the court of J.M. Ist Class, Sherghati, Gaya.

On receiving confidential information regarding commission of an offence under the leadership of Laleshji (veteran leader of "Maowadi"), raid was conducted, in that course huge quantity of explosive substance (detonator) along with allied

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18500 of 2015 (3) dt.09-07-2015 articles were recovered from the house of Lakhan Yadav. Thereafter, people who present there disclosed the name of petitioner along with others.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that nothing has been recovered from possession of the petitioner.

Having considered the facts and 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. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T