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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29887 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-148 Year-2023 Thana- KURSAILA District- Katihar ====================================================== Abhishek Yadav @ Abhishek Kumar Yadav Son of Mithilesh Kumar Yadav @ Kari Yadav Resident of village- Katriya, Police Station- Kursela, DistrictKatihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Md. Rahmatullah, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Nirmala Kumari, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 03-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Kursela P.S. Case No. 148 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 384, 386, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the FIR, on 06.07.2023, all the accused persons including the petitioner came to the informant and demanded extortion money. On refusal, they started assaulting the informant by means of deadly weapons and when the nearby people came there to save the informant, they were also assaulted due to which they sustained injuries.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and he has committed no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29887 of 2024(2) dt.03-07-2024 2/2 offence. No such occurrence as alleged has ever taken place. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. The allegation against the petitioner has not corroborated the injury report of the injured. It is further submitted that later on, the matter has been compromised between the parties. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-3 of this application.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that some of the injured persons have sustained grievous injuries, which is also evident from the impugned order. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case as well as the nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

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