Uday Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18149 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-287 Year-2014 Thana- MASAUDHI District- Patna ====================================================== Uday Yadav SON OF SURESH YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGEMOHADDIPUR, PS- MASAURHI, DISTT- PATNA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ahmad Ali ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 15-04-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Masaurhi P.S. Case No.287 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 380, 427, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, petitioner and others started demanding due amount of Rs. 20,000/- and when the same was refused by informant, petitioner and other assaulted and abused informant and also took away 3 kg copper from his shop and destroyed the wielding machine. It is further alleged that petitioner and others fled away by giving threatening of dire consequences.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18149 of 2024(2) dt.15-04-2024 2/3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioner bears criminal antecedent of two cases. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is residing outside Bihar and he was doing a private job at Ludhiana in hosiery factory since last twelve years and he did not get any chance to know regarding the pendency of the present case. Learned counsel further submits that there is no specific allegation attributed against the petitioner.

5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that case has been instituted in 2014 and petitioner's explanation is not satisfactory and he bears criminal antecedent as mentioned in the impugned order. He further submits that I.O. has collected sufficient material in the case diary with regard to involvement of the present petitioner in the alleged offence.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the aspect of delay without having satisfactory explanation, I am not inclined to grant privilege

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18149 of 2024(2) dt.15-04-2024 3/3 of anticipatory bail to petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

7. Petitioner is hereby directed to surrender before the concerned Court within a period of six weeks from today and if petitioner surrenders before the concerned Court, the concerned Court is directed to pass appropriate order on the same day of hearing without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) vashudha/- U T