Arun Kumar @ Arun Yadav And ORS. v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 19424 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -33 Year- 2014 Thana -KAHALGAON. District- BHAGALPUR ======================================================

1. Arun Kumar @ Arun Yadav Son of Late Prakash Yadav,

2. Vinay Yadav @ Binay Kumar, Son of Late Prakash Yadav,

3. Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Kumar, Son of Late Prakash Yadav,

4. Tulsi Yadav @ Tulsi Kumar, Son of Ram Pravesh Yadav

5. Jaikant Yadav @ Jaykant Kumar, Son of Ram Pravesh Yadav. All are the resident of village / Mohalla - Jamunia Tola, Kahalgoan, P.S. - Kahalgoan, District - Bhagalpur.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

17-06-2015 Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Arun Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Five petitioners, apprehending their arrest in connection with Kahalgaon (N.T.P.C.) P.S. Case No. 33 of 2014 registered for the offence under Section 307 & other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that only with a view to falsely implicate the petitioners, present F.I.R. has been lodged. He further submits that prior to the present F.I.R., one another F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioners, in which, police

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19424 of 2015 (2) dt.17-06-2015 2/2 after investigation submitted final report. He further submits that there is no specific accusation against the petitioners, only general and omnibus allegation has been made.

I have perused the F.I.R. In this case, fire-arm injury was given to the informant, in which, allegation is that all the petitioners have also participated in the occurrence. I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay/- U T