Patna High CourtCR. MISC./29637/2016rejected

Sumit Kumar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2016-10-19Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29637 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -78 Year- 2015 Thana -JADIA District- SUPAUL ======================================================

1. Sumit Kumar Son of Yogendra Kumar Yogesh

2. Shankar Kumar Son of Ramnandan Yadav

3. Mukesh Kumar Son of Ravindra Kumar Ravi

4. Yoganand Kumar Yogesh Son of Rajendra Yadav 1 to 4 are resident of Guriya Tola Navdihi, P.S. Jadia, District - Supaul

5. Indrajit Kumar Son of Dev Sundar Yadav

6. Chhotelal Yadav @ Chhotu Son of Shyam Sundar Yadav

7. Mantu Kumar Son of Shyam Sundar Yadav Petitioner No. 5 to 7 are Resident of village - Kukurdhari, Panchayat - Guriya, P.S. Jadia, District Supaul .... .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sri Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP.

For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Kr. Sinha, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 19-10-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Jadia P.S. Case No. 78 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Section 384 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that on 06.07.2015, the petitioners came at the working site and petitioner no. 4 Yoganand Kumar Yogesh is alleged to have put pistol at his temple. The accused persons assaulted the informant and asked him to pay extortion and also snatched Rs. 14,620/- from his pocket.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29637 of 2016 (3) dt.19-10-2016 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the date of occurrence is 06.07.2015, but the FIR was lodged on 17.07.2015 and no explanation for such delay is given. The petitioners have got enmity with Anil Yadav, Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat and that is why they have falsely been implicated in the case, but it appears that there is specific allegation against the petitioners that they demanded extortion from the contractor and assaulted the informant. The petitioner no. 4 has also got criminal antecedent.

Considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioners, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T