Anil Kumar Yadav @ Anil Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22697 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2018 Thana- BHEJA District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.
ANIL KUMAR YADAV @ ANIL YADAV Son of Shobhi Yadav, Resident of Village - Bakuwa, P.S.- Bheja, Distt.- Madhubani. 2.
Ajay Kumar Yadav @ Ajay Yadav Son of Rampukar Yadav Resident of Village - Bakuwa, P.S.- Bheja, Distt.- Madhubani. 3.
Ashok Kumar @ Dilkhush Yadav @ Ashok Yadav Son of Jimdar Yadav Resident of Village - Bakuwa, P.S.- Bheja, Distt.- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Hriday Narayan Harshit, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Umeshanand Pandit, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 16-07-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel representing the informant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioners in the present case seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Bheja P.S. Case No. 103 of 2018 registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 354(A), 379, 447 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as these three petitioners are concerned, allegation against the petitioner no. 1 is that he had taken away Rs. 15,000/- from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22697 of 2019(3) dt.16-07-2019 2/3 pocket of the informant, petitioner no. 2 had allegedly snatched 'Mangalsutra' from the neck of the wife of the informant, however, there is no allegation at all against petitioner no. 3. Save and except that he has been named amongst the persons who are said to have assembled at the place of occurrence. It is further stated that the allegation of firing is specific against Shobhi Yadav and considering this aspect of the matter the coaccused Ram Pukar Yadav has been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 26093 of 2019.
Learned counsel for the informant as also the learned APP for the State have opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail. It is submitted that these petitioners are having criminal antecedents and they are in habit of indulging in this kind of occurrences.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds from the records that co-accused Ram Pukar Yadav has been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by learned Coordinate Bench of this Court. There is no allegation of firing against these petitioners. So far as petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they are said to have fair antecedent and petitioner no. 1 has got one case in which he was on police bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22697 of 2019(3) dt.16-07-2019 3/3 In these circumstances, let the petitioners above named, in case of their arrest or surrender within four weeks from today in connection with Bheja P.S. Case No. 103 of 2018, be released on bail on execution of bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M. III, Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) ved/vats U T