Kailu Sada And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2824 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -31 Year- 2016 Thana -COMPLAINT CASE District- ARRARIA ======================================================

1. Kailu Sada, son of Late Lakhi Chand Sada

2. Sadanand Sada, son of Kailu Sada

3. Ramdeo Sada, son of late Bihari Sada

4. Bijli Sada, son of Late Bisheswar Sada All are resident of village- Khawaspur, P.S. Simraha, District Ararai .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. State of Bihar

2. Anandi Risideo, son of Late Saryug Risideo, resident of village Khabaspur, P.S. Forbesganj (Simraha) District Araria. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Bharat Bhushan (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 20-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 31C of 2016, registered for the offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, the petitioners and other co-accused along with five unknown burnt residential house of the complainant and when the wife of the complainant and Sugia Devi raised alarm and called the neighbourers the accused persons assaulted them and pushed in the fire, resulting, they were also partially burnt, due to fire, articles valued at Rs. 50,000/- was burnt, information was given at police station but nobody turned up for inquiry then the complainant case was filed. Lalita Devi and Sugia Devi were also

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2824 of 2017 (3) dt.20-04-2017 2/2 treated at Sadar Hospital at Araria.

Submission is of false implication and that the allegation in complaint petition is totally false, no such occurrence has taken place, there is no objective finding on the record, medical prescription has also not been attached with the complaint petition. The allegations are omnibus and general in nature and, as such, the petitioners deserve sympathetic consideration. The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of pre-arrest bail by submitting that the petitioners and other co-accused have committed heinous crime.

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to them and accordingly their such prayer stands rejected in connection with Complaint Case No. 31C of 2016, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Araria.

However, in case and if so advised the petitioners surrender and seek regular bail then their prayer for regular bail shall be considered preferably on the same day on its own merits without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T