Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2145/2017dismissed

Shiv Narayan Mahto v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-02-20Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2145 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1523 Year- 2015 Thana -PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPATNA ======================================================

1. Shiv Narayan Mahto S/o Late Budhan Mahto, Resident of Mohalla Saguna Devi Chawra, P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Vikash Kumar (32) Years, S/o Sri Om Prakash Resident of Naya Tola (Saguna) P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna.

3. Abhijit Kumar aged (28) years, son of Vinay Kumar Singh, Resident of Mohalla Lalkothi Bibiganj, P. S. Danapur, District, patna

4. Sanjay Rai aged about (30) years son of Jawahar Rai, resident of Mohalla Saguna P. S. Danapur District-Patna

5. Bipat Singh age about (40) years son of late Biphan Singh

6. Mahendra Singh age about 60 years

7. Surendra Singh age about 53 years Both sons of Late Hari Charan Singh Resident of village Shikarpur, P. S. Danapur, District-Patna

8. Rameshwar Prasad aged about 56 years son of Ramjivan Prasad, Resident of Village Laxmichak P. S. Sherpur District-Patna

9. Gopal Rai aged about 40 years son of late Dashrath Rai Resident of Mohalla Saguna Naya Tola P. S. Danapur District-Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Abhay Kumar - 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The Opposite parties No. 2 to 9 have been allowed anticipatory bail by an order, dated 06.12.2016, by learned Sessions Judge, Patna passed in ABP No. 7776 of 2016 arising out of Complaint Case No. 1523©/ 2015, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The present application has been filed seeking cancellation of bail so granted.

4. There is no material to show that the Opposite parties have misused the privilege of bail after said consideration was allowed to them. Secondly, considering the nature of dispute between the parties, the exercise of discretion by the Court below allowing the Opposite parties privilege of anticipatory bail cannot be faulted with.

5. This application has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

ArunKumar/- (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) U