← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./42694/2015dismissed

Nitesh Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2015-12-09Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.42694 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -258 Year- 2014 Thana -HUSAINGANJ District- SIWAN ======================================================

1. Nitesh Yadav Son of Gorakh Yadav

2. Daya Shankar Yadav @ Dayanand Yadav Son of Gorakh Yadav

3. Satyendra Yadav Son of Gena Yadav

4. Gorakh Yadav Son of Ram Chandra Yadav All are residents of Village : Rafipur, P.S. Hussainganj, District : Siwan.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sunil Kr.Pandey(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 4.

09-12-2015 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Hussainganj P.S. Case No. 258/2014, registered for the offences punishable under Section 384, 323, 341, 308, 324 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.

The petitioners are alleged to have demanded extortion and due to non-fulfillment of extortion, the petitioners assaulted the informant and others.

It is submitted that the informant is henchman of one Umesh Tiwari. Umesh Tiwari and Chandrama Yadav in collusion with S.I. Satyendra Prasad prepared forged and fabricated

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42694 of 2015 (4) dt.09-12-2015 2/2 documents for which many cases have been lodged. At the instance of Umesh Tiwari the present case is lodged against the petitioners, as the petitioners protesting the misdeeds of Umesh Tiwary and Chandrama Yadav. But it appears that there is a specific allegation against the petitioners that they demanded extortion and due to non-fulfillment, the petitioners assaulted the informant and two others. Corresponding injuries are also found. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T