Rakesh Kumar And ORS. v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14688 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -146 Year- 2015 Thana -AHIAPUR District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Rakesh Kumar S/o Daroga Sahni

2. Santosh Kumar S/o Prem Sahni

3. Amar Jit Kumar S/o Raj Kishore Sahni All resident of village - Kolhua Paigamberpur, P.S. Ahiyapur, District - Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ S.K. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar No.2 (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-04-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State. This application for grant of anticipatory bail arises out of Ahiyapur P.S.Case No. 146/2015, disclosing offences under section 398 of the Indian Penal Code.

Believing a Police Officer on duty, to be a common man, the accused persons alleged to have attacked upon him for the purpose of committing loot. Upon seeking the police party, they attempted to flee away. One of them, namely, Dhiraj Kumar was arrested, while others could flee away successfully. The said Dhiraj Kumar has taken names of these petitioners, who were said to be in possession of country made pistol etc. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14688 of 2016 (2) dt.29-04-2016 from the possession of the said Dhiraj Kumar only broken piece of brick was recovered. He has submitted that the implication of these petitioners is nothing else, but highhandedness of the police personnel. He has also submitted that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

However, considering the nature of accusation against these petitioners, I am not inclined to grant them privilege of anticipatory bail since their custodial interrogation may be needed. This application is, accordingly, rejected.

The petitioners are directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks from today and seek regular bail, if so advised. If they do so, their application for regular bail shall be considered on its own merit, without being prejudiced by rejection of present application for grant of anticipatory bail. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Surendra/- U