Patna High CourtCR. MISC./27866/2021rejected

Prabhash Kumar Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2022-02-24Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27866 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-390 Year-2020 Thana- FALKA District- Katihar ====================================================== 1.

PRABHASH KUMAR YADAV @ PAPPU YADAV S/o- Bijendra Yadav R/o Village- Chandpur Dira, P.S.- Falka, District- Katihar. 2.

Prince Kumar @ Prince Kumar Yadav S/o- Prabhash Kumar Yadav R/o Village- Chandpur Dira, P.S.- Falka, District- Katihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Md. Matloob Rab ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 24-02-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Falka (Pothia) P.S. Case No. 390 of 2020 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 307/34 of the I.P.C. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case due to local village party politics and personal grudge of the informant. Further he submits that petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioners by contending that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27866 of 2021(2) dt.24-02-2022 2/2 petitioners are named in the first information report. Further he submits that in the first information report, there is specific allegation of snatching the child and gave knife blow at the niece of the informant with intention to kill her as a result of which she sustained grievous injury, as is evident from Annexure-2 to the bail application. Hence, the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioners is rejected.

shailendra/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T