Patna High CourtCR. MISC./20578/2022bail rejected

Makim Mian v. The State Of Bihar

2022-09-01Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20578 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2021 Thana- SRINAGAR District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Makim Mian Son of Islam Miyan Resident of village - Bagahi Baghambarpur, Khalwa Tola, Police Station - Shringar Pujahan, DistrictWest Champaran. 2.

Sunil Chaudhary Son of Biran Chaudhary Resident of village - Bagahi Baghambarpur, Khalwa Tola, Police Station - Shringar Pujahan, DistrictWest Champaran. 3.

nandu Chaudhary Son of Bipat Chaudhary Resident of village - Bagahi Baghambarpur, Khalwa Tola, Police Station - Shringar Pujahan, DistrictWest Champaran. 4.

Khalil Mian Son of Sahadat Mian Resident of village - Bagahi Baghambarpur, Khalwa Tola, Police Station - Shringar Pujahan, DistrictWest Champaran. 5.

Sakil Mian Son of Islam Mian Resident of village - Bagahi Baghambarpur, Khalwa Tola, Police Station - Shringar Pujahan, District- West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anant Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-09-2022 Heard both parties.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Shrinagar P.S. Case No. 38 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 323 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, on the order of petitioner no. 1, petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and other FIR named accused persons assaulted the forest officials, as a result of which some

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20578 of 2022(2) dt.01-09-2022 2/2 of them sustained injuries.

It is submitted that allegation is general and omnibus. Petitioner no. 1 is order giver. So far as petitioner nos. 2 to 5 are concerned allegation is general and omnibus. Petitioners have got clean antecedents.

However, counsel for State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is specific and direct allegation against petitioners of assaulting the forest officials. Considering the facts aforesaid and gravity of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above-named on anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is dismissed.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T