Shiv Kumar @ Hari @ Hari Kumar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.38125 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -20 Year- 2016 Thana -CHANAN District- LAKHISARAI ======================================================
1. Shiv Kumar @ Hari @ Hari Kumar, son of Ritlal Mandal
2. Prakash Saw, son of Ino Saw.
3. Dashrath Saw @ Benga, son of Garib Sao.
4. Indra Deo Mandal, son of Ganesh Mandal.
5. Daso Mistri, son of Sitaram Mistri, All are Residents of Village- Gopalpur, Gumti Tola, P.S.- Chanan, District- Lakhisarai.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shaukat Alam For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Akshay Lal Pandit ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-09-2016 Heard Mr. Shaukat Alam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Akshay Lal Pandit, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
Five petitioners, apprehending their arrest in Chanan P.S. Case No.20/2016, G.R. No.178 of 2016 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 447, 324, 304 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail, primarily on the ground that some of the accused persons have been extended the privilege of anticipatory bail by order dated 13.07.2016 passed in Cr.Misc.No.27592 of 2016. It was submitted by learned counsel for the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38125 of 2016 (2) dt.09-09-2016 2/2 petitioners that in the F.I.R., there is no specific accusation against any of the petitioners. He submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against them. He further submits that no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. On perusal of the F.I.R. the Court is satisfied that it was not a case for grant of anticipatory bail. In the F.I.R, there is serious accusation against the accused persons. It is true that other accused persons have been granted anticipatory bail, but this Court is of the opinion that in a case, in which persons named as accused in a serious offence, normally anticipatory bail may not be entertained. I do not find any ground to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail.
The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U T