Chitranjan Prasad And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.39062 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -631 Year- 2016 Thana -SAHARSA District- SAHARSA ======================================================
1. Chitranjan Prasad S/o Late Kuldeep Prasad
2. Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar S/o Chitranjan Prasad Both resident of village - Shakuntala Nagar, Ward No. 32, East of Polytechnic P.S. + District Saharsa .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Nand Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-09-2016 Heard Sri Shiv Shankar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners , Sri Nand Kumar, learned A.P.P. as well as Sri Bal Krishna Mishra, learned counsel, who has voluntarily appeared on behalf of the informant.
Two petitioners , apprehending their arrest in Saharsa Sadar P.S. Case No. 631 of 2016 registered for the offence under Section 341, 323, 504, 384, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.
By way referring to the F.I.R. as well as Annexure- 2 to the present petition it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. rule was made absolute against the informant of the present case
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39062 of 2016 (2) dt.20-09-2016 2/2 and in respect of same land allegation has been made by the informant that his boundary wall was demolished by the petitioners and others. He submits that in a civil dispute color of criminal offence has been given and as such a prayer has been made for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.
Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties I have also perused the materials available on record particularly the statement made in paragraph no. 3 of the petition which depicts that petitioners are having criminal antecedent. Moreover, in view of accusation made in the F.I.R. the Court is of the opinion that it is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T