Rajkishore Puri @ Sadhu Puri And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.3691 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -130 Year- 2015 Thana -DUMRIAGHAT DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Rajkishore Puri @ Sadhu Puri,

2. Shivprakash Puri,

3. Ramprakash Puri, All sons of Satyadeo Puri,

4. Rakesh Puri @ Rakesh Kumar Puri, son of Yogendra Puri,

5. Satyadeo Puri, son of Dharmdeo Puri,

6. Manish Puri @ Manish Kumar Puri, son of Dhrup Puri,

7. Omprakash Puri,

8. Upendra Puri, Both sons of Late Nagina Puri,

9. Pramod Puri @ Pramod Kumar Puri, son of Upendra Puri, All Residents of village- Rampur Khajuriya, P.S. - Dumariyaghat, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sri Rajeev Nayan (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 02-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Dumariyghat P.S. Case No. 130 of 2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 382, 386, 387, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of Arms Act.

Allegedly, the petitioners assaulted the salesmen of petrol pump with an intention to kill them and snatched Rs. 95,000/- from salesman Munna Kumar Yadav. Earlier also the petitioners used to take ransom on the petrol pump and on that

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.3691 of 2017 (3) dt.02-03-2017 2/2 date the accused persons have snatched mobile of Lava company from Munna Kumar Yadav also.

Submission is of false implication and that there is no specific allegation against anyone, all the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. The petitioners have been made victim of the circumstances and, as such, the petitioners deserve sympathetic consideration.

The learned A.P.P. duly assisted by the learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer of pre-arrest bail by submitting that the petitioners have also assaulted the driver and conductor of the bus after this occurrence and for that another case is also lodged against them.

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 Dumariyaghat P.S. Case No. 130 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raxaul at Motihari, East Champaran.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T