Ravindra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31694 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-205 Year-2020 Thana- OBRA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== 1.

RAVINDRA YADAV Son of Naresh Yadav Resident of Village - Mayapur, P.S.- Obra, District - Aurangabad.

2.

Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh Son of Dudheshwar Singh Resident of Village - Mayapur, P.S.- Obra, District - Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjit Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegation is that the accused persons including the petitioners assaulted the informant's uncle by means of iron rod and Khanti on his head as a result of which, he sustained injury on his head. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31694 of 2021(2) dt.08-03-2022 2/2 petitioners. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Single iron rod as well as Khanti blow is said to have been given by the petitioners. There is no repetition of blow. The said occurrence is said to have been taken place in a spur of the moment. Prior to institution of the present case, a case (Annexure-2 to this application) was instituted by the petitioners' side. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioners are named in the Complaint Case/F.I.R. The nature of injury is said to be grievous.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. If the petitioners surrender in the court below and seek regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudice by this order.

(Sudhir Singh, J) A.K.V.//- U T