Jyotish Kumar @ Jyotish Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31103 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-11 Year-2016 Thana- GWALPARA District- Madhepura ====================================================== 1.

Jyotish Kumar @ Jyotish Yadav, son of Bano Yadav, 2.

Dinesh Yadav, son of Late Chit Narayan Yadav, 3.

Gobind Yadav, son of Dinesh Yadav, all residents of VillageRahi Tola, Police Station- Gwalpara, District- Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Durgesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rana Pratap Singh Mr. Pranav Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 20-09-2017 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, State and the informant.

Petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Gwalpara P.S. Case No. 11 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner have been implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. During investigation, witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Entire prosecution version is full of concoction and fabrication.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State submits that there is specific allegation of assault against petitioner no.s 1 & 3 which is supported by the injury report.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31103 of 2017(3) dt.20-09-2017 2/2 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of advanced on behalf of the parties, let the petitioner no. 2, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in connection with Gwalpura P.S. Case No. 11 of 2016 subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

However, considering the nature of allegations levelled, injury report and the submissions of the parties, this Court does not feel inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioner nos. 1 & 3. Their prayer for anticipatory bail is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T