Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.42252 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -116 Year- 2017 Thana -KATORIA District- BANKA ======================================================
1. Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Yadav, S/o Chandeshwari Yadav.
2. Binod Yadav, S/o Chandeshwari Yadav, Both resident of Kawariya Pathj near Dharmshala, P.S. Katoria, District- Banka. .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kalyan Shankar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 19-09-2017 Heard leaned counsel for the petitioners and the leaned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Katoriya P.S. Case No. 116 of 2017, registered under Sections 353 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the A.C.J.M-I, Banka.
The accusation is that the informant Ranjeet Kumar Sah being the Process Server, Civil Court, Banka had gone to serve the notice of Family Court, Banka in the house of Sarita Devi in village Katoriya, mother of Sita Devi was present there and she asked to wait and accordingly, he waits there for two hours. In the meantime, four persons came boarding on white colour Maruti Car in drunken stage and asked him to endorse that
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.42252 of 2017 (2) dt.19-09-2017 2/2 there is no trace, when informant made protest and refused to make the note about no trace of Sarita Devi then all the four persons dashed him and tried to torn the notice, but anyhow he saved the notice. On enquiry, he came to know that petitioners was the person, who tried to snatch the notice and he would identify the other two persons on seeing them again. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. The petitioners is directed to surrender before the trail Court within six 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