Patna High CourtCR. MISC./51599/2016dismissed

Rajendra Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2017-01-30Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51599 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -501 Year- 2016 Thana -MADHEPURA District- MADHEPURA ======================================================

1. Rajendra Yadav Son of Late Parmeshwari Yadav

2. Arvind Yadav Son of Late Parmeshwari Yadav

3. Mannu Kumar @ Mannu Yadav, Son of Rajendra Yadav All Residents of Village- Sri Nagar, P.S. Ghailadh, District- Madhepura. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Tapeshwar Sharma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 30-01-2017 Heard the parties.

This application has been filed in connection with Madhepura P.S.Case No.501/2016 dated 9.8.2016 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 324, 325, 307, 302, 379, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that though the petitioners have been named in the FIR but no specific allegation of assault has been given. There is general allegation of assault against all the accused persons. It has further been submitted that the petitioners are in custody since 23.9.2016. Heard learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel for the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51599 of 2016 (3) dt.30-01-2017 2/2 informant.

The learned counsel for the informant has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner, stating that the petitioner has also been named in the F.I.R. and there is allegation against him that he has assaulted by 'rod' and the post mortem report also supports the prosecution of the case.

Having heard both sides. In view of the allegation as levelled against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected, however, the learned court below is directed to expedite the trial of the case.

With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U