Santosh Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1172 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-301 Year-2015 Thana- KUSHESHWARASTHAN DistrictDarbhanga ====================================================== SANTOSH KUMAR YADAV, aged about 24 years, Male, S/o Shyam Yadav Resident of Village- Sultanpur, P.S.- Kusheshwar Asthan, District- Darbhanga ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr.Ajay Kumar For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Binay Krishna For the informant :
Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 20-05-2019 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the State.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.10.2018 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge, Darbhanga (SC/ST Act) in A.B.P. No. 1521 of 2018 in connection with Kusheshwar Asthan P.S. Case No. 301 of 2015 registered under sections 147, 149, 447, 341, 323, 354, 308, 379, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(v)(x)(xi) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. There is case and counter case between the parties due
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1172 of 2019(5) dt.20-05-2019 2/2 to admitted land dispute between the parties. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State as also learned counsel appearing for the informant opposes the prayer for bail and submits appellant is named in the first information report and there is specific allegation of assault against him. It is, therefore, submitted that the appellant does not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant. The same is, therefore, rejected.
The appeal is dismissed.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T