Kameshwar Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16507 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -192 Year- 2015 Thana -BAHERI District- DARBHANGA ======================================================

1. Kameshwar Yadav S/o Late Jog Narayan Yadav

2. Sharawan Kumar Yadav S/o Kameshwar Yadav Both Resident of Village- Hanuman Nagar, P.S.- Baheri, DistrictDarbhanga. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 06-07-2017 Heard Sri Jagarnath Singh, learned counsel, assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Two petitioners, who are son and father respectively, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in Baheri P.S. Case No. 192/2015 registered for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 325, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that from the petitioners side, the case was lodged one day prior to lodging of the present F.I.R. and the petitioners side had also received serious injuries. According to him, there was case and counter case and counter case was lodged by the side of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16507 of 2017 (2) dt.06-07-2017 2/2 the informant on 27.08.2015 vide Baheri P.S. Case No.192 of 2015, whereas from the petitioners side, F.I.R. was lodged on 26.08.2017 vide Baheri P.S. Case No.191 of 2015 and , as such, on this ground, he has made a prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. However, on going through the F.I.R. it is evident that against both petitioners there is accusation of giving serious injuries on the informant as well as his brother. From the order of the court below, it appears that injuries were also noticed during investigation. Considering the specific accusation against both petitioners, there is no reason to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed. (Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U T