Patna High CourtCR. MISC./26589/2016dismissed

Lalit Narayan Mishra And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2016-07-04Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26589 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -730 Year- 2015 Thana -MOTIHARI TOWN DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Lalit Narayan Mishra son of Umashankar Mishra

2. Pankaj Chaudhary son of Shashikant Chaudhary Both residents of Village- Madhuban Chhawani Chowk Meena Bazar, P.S.- Motihari Town, District- East Champaran.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-07-2016 Heard Sri Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared on behalf of the State whereas Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the informant, has voluntarily appeared to oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail. Two petitioners, apprehending their arrest in connection with Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 730 of 2015 registered for the offence under section 387 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioners tried to persuade the court that since the dispute in respect of the land over which clinic of the informant is running is going on in between the petitioners and one Smt. Mira Devi, false case was got instituted

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26589 of 2016 (2) dt.04-07-2016 2/2 as per the instance of Sri Krishna Kumar, husband of Smt. Mira Devi. On this very ground he has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail whereas learned counsel for the informant opposing the prayer for bail submits that in the F.I.R. itself there is specific accusation. Besides this he submits that in paragraph no. 3 of the petition the petitioners have made incorrect statement regarding antecedent of the petitioner no. 1. He submits that petitioner no. 1 is accused in altogether six cases whereas in paragraph no. 3 disclosure of only two cases has been mentioned. Keeping in view the fact that in the F.I.R. there is specific accusation against the petitioners, I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T