Sanjeev Yadav v. The State Of Bihar Through The Spl. P.P. Sc/St Act

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.980 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2018 Thana- CHANDRADIP District- Jamui ====================================================== SANJEEV YADAV, aged about 30 years, Male, Son of Umeshwar Yadav @ Umakant Verma, Resident of village- Hathiya, Police Station- Chandradeep, District- Jamui.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SPL. P.P. SC/ST ACT ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sadanand Paswan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 20-05-2019 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the State.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.11.2018 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui in A.B.P. No. 982 of 2018 in connection with Chandradeep P.S. Case No. 77 of 2018 registered under sections 341, 323, 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. The injuries sustained have been found to be simple in nature. Appellant is a man of clean antecedent.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.980 of 2019(4) dt.20-05-2019 2/2 Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that that there is specific allegation of assault against this appellant and the injury report supports the same. It is, therefore, submitted that the appellant does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. The same is, therefore, rejected.

The appeal is dismissed.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T