Binod Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79308 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2018 Thana- SAHARSA District- Saharsa ====================================================== 1.

Binod Yadav, Son of Lakshmi Yadav 2.

Manish Kumar Son of Binod Yadav 3.

Laltu Yadav @ Kundan Kumar @ Kundan Kumar Yadav @ Alt Yadav Son of Ratilal Yadav All Resident of Village- Dumrail, Ward No.34, Police Station and District- Saharsa.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 02-05-2019 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 166 of 2018, registered under Section 447, 341, 323, 386, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa.

The accusation is that on 18.02.2018, while informant Surendra Yadav was engaged in constructing the house behind Homeopathic college, Saharsa, at that time petitioners along with three unknown came there and made demand of ransom for construction the house to the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79308 of 2018(4) dt.02-05-2019 2/2 When informant made protest then all assaulted him through fist, slaps and lathi in which he sustained injury at his nose and mouth and petitioner No. 1 snatched Rs. 50,000/- and golden chain.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, in fact, due to grudge, the occurrence of Marpit took place, but the informant made the case grievous in nature after inserting the facts of demanding ransom. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioners are directed to surrender before the trial Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T