Chandrika Yadav @ Chander Yadav @ Chandar Yadav @Chandra Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29602 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.29602 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -178 Year- 2017 Thana -NAWADA District- NAWADA ======================================================
1. CHANDRIKA YADAV @ CHANDER YADAV @ CHANDAR YADAV @CHANDRA YADAV Son of Late Mohan Yadav,
2. Sandeep Kumar
3. Munnilal Yadav @ Ranjit Kumar Both Sons of Chandrika Yadav @ Chander Yadav All Resident of Village-Mayor Bigha, P.S. Town, DistrictNawada .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Soni Shrivastava For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Rajendra Singh Shastriji ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 07-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Nawada P.S. Case No. 178 of 2017 registered under Sections 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners acquired the land in question through Hukumnama and had given it on rent. The present case is counter blast of Complaint Case No. 350 of 2017. Injury report does not support the allegations levelled against these petitioners.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29602 of 2017 (2) dt.07-07-2017 Petitioners have no criminal antecedent.
Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioners are named accused and there is specific allegation of assault against these petitioners. During investigation witnesses have supported the prosecution case.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and the allegations levelled against these petitioners, I do not feel inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. His prayer for anticipatory bail is, therefore, rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J) Manish/- U T