Vishwanath Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30866 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-143 Year-2014 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Vishwanath Sahani Son of Late Jang Bahadur Sahani Resident of VillageBalochak, Konhiya Tola, P.S.- Chakia, Dist.- East Champaran 2.

Binod Sahani Son of Late Jang Bahadur Sahani Resident of VillageBalochak, Konhiya Tola, P.S.- Chakia, Dist.- East Champaran 3.

Upendra Sahani Son of Late Jang Bahadur Sahani Resident of VillageBalochak, Konhiya Tola, P.S.- Chakia, Dist.- East Champaran 4.

Rambabu Sahani Son of Kapildeo Sahani Resident of Village- Balochak, Konhiya Tola, P.S.- Chakia, Dist.- East Champaran 5.

Dinanath Sahani Son of Late Ramsewak Sahani Resident of VillageBalochak, Konhiya Tola, P.S.- Chakia, Dist.- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Asha Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 21-05-2024 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Chakia P.S. Case No. 143 of 2014 for the offence registered under sections 448, 341, 323, 504, 506, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 17.06.2014 by the informant Gangajali Devi.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that her husband was going to purchase 'buffalo' when the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30866 of 2024(2) dt.21-05-2024 2/2 accused persons assaulted and locked him in the room, the amount was also snatched, it was the police who rescued and took him to the hospital. Accordingly, the F.I.R.

4. At the outset, learned APP drew attention of this Court to the fact that the F.I.R. is of the year 2014 and the petitioners have approached this Court ten years later.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier they were granted benefits of section 41(i) of the Cr.P.C., later charge sheet submitted which was unknown to them and caused delay.

6. This Court is not satisfied with the explanation given by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. A case was registered against them, once charge sheet submitted, it was their duty to either seek anticipatory bail or surrender, they failed in both. In that background, it would be appropriate that they seek bail.

7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Neha/- U T