Sintu Kumar @ Judagir Yadav @ Judagir v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37043 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-515 Year-2020 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.

SINTU KUMAR @ JUDAGIR YADAV @ JUDAGIR S/O BUNDEL YADAV R/O VILLAGE THALALU BIGHA, PS GHOSHI, DISTRICT JEHANABAD 2.

SAMINDRA YADAV @ MANISH YADAV S/O BUNDEL YADAV R/O VILLAGE THALALU BIGHA, PS GHOSHI, DISTRICT JEHANABAD 3.

BHOKHAR @ SALENDRA YADAV S/O LATE LALDEV YADAV R/O VILLAGE THALALU BIGHA, PS GHOSHI, DISTRICT JEHANABAD ... ... Petitioners.

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kumari Sujata Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 08-02-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual Court proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within four weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Ghoshi P.S. Case No. 515 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 379, 504 & 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37043 of 2021(2) dt.08-02-2022 2/3 learned C.J.M., Jehanabad.

The allegation against these petitioners is that they assaulted the informant by means of lathi, danda and rod due to which he sustained multiple injuries.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. Petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners is serious in nature, hence they do not deserve anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that prayer for anticipatory bail of similarly situated co-accused has been rejected by this Court vide order dated 25.01.2022 pass in Cr. Misc. No.32029 of 2021.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected. However, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail and the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37043 of 2021(2) dt.08-02-2022 3/3 learned Court below would pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T