Bablu Thakur And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.78569 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-271 Year-2018 Thana- SAHPUR District- Bhojpur ======================================================

1. Bablu Thakur

2. Binod Thakur

3. Madan Thakur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Prabhu Narayan Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Smt. Gulnar Begam, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 09-01-2019 Heard the parties.

The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Shahpur (Bahoranpur) P. S. Case No. 271 of 2018, registered for offences punishable under Sections 147,148, 149, 353, 307, 384 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of Arms Act.

Allegation against the petitioners as per F.I.R. is that the informant after receiving secret information reached with police party at that place, where several accused persons variously armed proceeded towards the place of occurrence and when they asked the accused persons to surrender and started indiscriminate firing, thereafter the accused persons started fleeing away and in course of that one co-accused, Sonu Ram was apprehended and one cartridges was recovered from his pocket and four cartridges were recovered from his house and from the possession of petitioner No. 1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.78569 of 2018(2) dt.09-01-2019 2/2 five cartridges were recovered from his room and accordingly seizure list has been prepared and the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. It is further alleged that the petitioner No. 1, who is accused in eight cases and petitioner No. 2, Binod Thakur is accused in five cases and petitioner No. 3 is accused in two cases.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case due to village politics and business enmity. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances,I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners rather they surrender before the Court below and make prayer for regular bail, which will be considered by the learned court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of this Court.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sudha/- U T