Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39112/2016dismissed

Santosh Singh @ Santosh Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2016-09-21Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.39112 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -31 Year- 2015 Thana -HARIJAN District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Santosh Singh @ Santosh Yadav Son of Shiv Kumar Yadav

2. Manoj Singh alias Manoj Yadav Son of Shiv Kumar Yadav

3. Shiv Narayan Singh alias Shiv Narayan Yadav Son of Kedar Singh Yadav All residents of Village- Kishunpura, P.S.- Chenari, District- Rohtas at Sasaram.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Prakash Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binay Krishna ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 21-09-2016 Heard Sri Jai Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Binay Krishna, learned Special Public Prosecutor for Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe ( Prevention of Atrocities ) Act.

Three petitioners, who are named as accused in S.C. S.T. P.S. Rohtas ( Dihari) Case No. 31 of 2015 registered for the offence under Section 376/ 511 , 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (i)(x) (xi) (xii) of Schedule Caste Schedule Tribe ( Prevention of Atrocities ) Act have prayed for grant of bail in the event of arrest or surrender.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39112 of 2016 (2) dt.21-09-2016 2/2 that land dispute in between petitioners' side and informant's side was going on since long and earlier also false case was instituted. Learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to persuade the court to rely on Annexure - 2 to the present petition which is a document dated 8/1/2016 i.e. which was prepared subsequent to the present occurrence.

However after examining the allegation made in the F.I.R. the court is of the opinion that it is not a case for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T