Arun Upadhyay And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.36759 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -148 Year- 2015 Thana -ITADHI District- BUXAR ======================================================
1. Arun Upadhyay Son of Rama Shankar Upadhyay resident of village - Bagahi
2. Anil Kumar Yadav @ Anil Kumar Singh Son of Bhuwawal Singh resident of village - Khekhsi, P.S. Itarhi, District - Buxar .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Rina Sinha (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 23-11-2015 Heard both sides.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Itarhi P.S. Case No. 148/2015, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 379 & 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant, Junior Engineer, Electric Supply Sub division, Buxar made allegation that Avinash Pandey, a contractor had to install 16 kva transformer, but he was installing 63 Kva transformer. When the informant objected, the petitioners and others assaulted and also snatched money from his pocket. It is submitted that the father of Avinash Pandey also filed a complaint case against the complainant-informant. It was proposed that 63 kva transformer was to be installed but the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36759 of 2015 (4) dt.23-11-2015 2/2 informant wanted the said transformer to be installed near Sahu Toli Nahar Pul and that is why some altercation took place. No injury was found on the persons of the informant. Having considered the facts that the informant is an employee of Eclectic Supply Sub Division, Buxar and the contractor Avinash Pandey was installing 63 kva transformer in village Bagahipatti, although he had to install 16 kva of transformer, during course of supervision the informant objected the petitioners and on such the petitioners are alleged to have assaulted and snatched money from the pocket of the informant, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Rakhi U T