Patna High CourtCR. MISC./47295/2017rejected

Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-10-04Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.47295 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -16 Year- 2015 Thana -MAHKAR District- GAYA ====================================================== Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Kumar Yadav Son of Siya Sharan Yadav @ Shiv Yadav, R/o Village Jharha, P.S.- Mahkar, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sheikh Arkan Ahmad For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Meena Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 04-10-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahkar P.S. Case No. 16 of 2015, registered under Sections 406, 420, 424 and 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Gaya. The accusation is that on receiving information about accident of Mantu Kumar, younger brother of the petitioner, the informant being the ASI of Mahkar Police Station reached there then came to know that injured Mantu Kumar has been rushed for treatment and the truck, in question, was carried by Sudhir Kumar Yadav (Petitioner) at his house. Thereafter, informant reached at the house of the petitioner and asked to carry the truck at Police Station, but he made protest saying that unless the case

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47295 of 2017 (2) dt.04-10-2017 2/2 would not be instituted he will not permit to carry the truck at Police Station. Thereafter, on Zimanama, the offending truck was handed over to the petitioner, but when informant reached at the house of the petitioner then came to know that the truck, in question, has been released by the petitioner to its owner. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the trail Court within four weeks and pray for regular bail, which would be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T