Markandey Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43902 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -92 Year- 2016 Thana -RAJPUR District- BUXAR ======================================================

1. Markandey Yadav S/o Sudama Singh

2. Vikash Yadav S/o Ram Pravesh Yadav.

3. Binod Yadav S/o Shiv Murat Yadav All R/o Village- Sarenja, P.S.- Rajpur, District- Buxar.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.42862 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -92 Year- 2016 Thana -RAJPUR District- BUXAR ======================================================

1. Ajit Yadav Son of Ramavtar Yadav Resident of Village- Jadpurva, P.S. Rajpur, District Buxar.

2. Ashok Yadav Son of Bali Ram Yadav Resident of Village- Sarenja, P.S. Rajpur, District Buxar.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

(In Cr.Misc. No.43902 of 2016) For the Petitioners : Mr. Manendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, APP.

(In Cr.Misc. No.42862 of 2016) For the Petitioner : Mr. Manendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. Anant Kumar, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 24-11-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Rajpur P.S. Case No. 92 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 379, 384, 385 and other Sections of the Indian Penal

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43902 of 2016 (3) dt.24-11-2016 2/2 Code.

The informant named the petitioners and alleged that the petitioners along with others having armed with different weapons including firearms and on the order of Ashok Yadav who resorted to kill the informant stated that they already killed his father Ranjit and they would not allow him to be Mukhiya and demanded extortion.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that nobody was injured except one who is said to have got simple injuries. The allegation of firing is also not substantiated but, it appears that the informant and other witnesses have stated about the occurrence and disclosed that the petitioners made indiscriminate firing. Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T