Dinesh Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33310 of 2017 (3) dt.21-08-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.33310 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -108 Year- 2017 Thana -BAKHTIARPUR District- SAHARSA ======================================================

1. Dinesh Yadav

2. Ramesh Yadav Both Sons of Balo Yadav

3. Balo Yadav Son of late Babulal Yadav All resident of Village- Mahkhar Goth, P.S. Bakhtiyarpur, Distt. - Saharsa.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Vinod Shankar Modi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 21-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 108 of 2017 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 379, 337/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that there is case and counter case between the parties. The present first information report has been lodged after delay of about ten days and there is no explanation. Except one injury, all injuries have been found to be simple in nature. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.33310 of 2017 (3) dt.21-08-2017 the case, let the above named petitioner no.1 and 3 be released on bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa in connection with Bakhtiyarpur P.S. Case No. 108 of 2017 subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C.

However, considering the nature of allegations levelled and the submissions of the parties, I do not feel inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioner no. 2. His prayer for anticipatory bail is, therefore, rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J) Manish/- U T