Shanker Ram, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25863 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-181 Year-2018 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.

Shanker Ram, S/O Late Narayan Ram, Resident of Village- Balha Nande Nagar, P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur.

2.

Rajesh Ram, S/O Ram Badan Ram, Resident of Village- Balha Nande Nagar, P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur.

3.

Ram Bharosh Ram, S/O Saryug Ram, Resident of Village- Balha Nande Nagar, P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur.

4.

Manoj Ram, S/O Shanti Ram, Resident of Village- Balha Nande Nagar, P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur.

5.

Mohan Ram, S/O Shanti Ram, Resident of Village- Balha Nande Nagar, P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur.

6.

Raj Kumar Ram, S/o Jogi Ram, Resident of Village- Balha Nande Nagar, P.S.- Rosera, District- Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 03-07-2019 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Rosera P.S. Case No.181 of 2018, disclosing offences under Sections 109, 147, 148, 323, 353, 379, 427 and 504 of IPC.

Prosecution story is that one Sunita Devi has filed a petition before the S.H.O., Rosera, the informant, ASI has made an enquiry and tried to pacify the matter and brought the confined person on the Balha Pitch road. Thereafter, 40-50 unknown persons started assaulted on the confined persons and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25863 of 2019(4) dt.03-07-2019 2/2 the informant anyhow tried to carry them in their custody and also snatched his diary. In the meantime, they succeeded in fleeing away.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that through they named in the F.I.R. but no any specific allegation has been attributed against them.

Heard learned A.P.P. also, who has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by stating that the petitioners are the accused in other cases under Section 354 and other sections of the IPC.

Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, however, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned court below and make prayer for regular bail.

With the aforesaid, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sunil Shukla/- U T