Rohit Kumar And Kolahari Sharma v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 43859 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -30 Year- 2016 Thana -DHANARUA District- PATNA =========================================================== Rohit Kumar @ Kolahari Sharma, Son of Sri Surendra Prasad Sharma, Resident of village - Khadiha, P.S. Dhanarua, District - Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey & Mr. Radhe Shyam Kumar, Advocates For the State :
Mr. Sadanand Paswan, A.P.P.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 04-10-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 30 of 2016 dated 21.01.2016 instituted under Sections 447/448/323/379/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 27 of the Arms Act and 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with co-accused Pintu Singh, had come to the house of the informant and after putting gun to his temple had threatened to shoot him if he did not withdraw the case against Pintu Singh. It is further allegation that the petitioner and the other co-accused had also used abusive language with regard to the caste of the informant.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43859 of 2016 dt.04-10-2016 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the fardbeyan itself, the case was against Pintu Singh and, thus, the petitioner was nowhere involved with regard to either the case being withdrawn or put to trial. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no enmity with the informant and only because of being a covillager, due to local politics, he has been implicated in this case. Having considered the rival contentions, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. However, in the event the petitioner surrenders before the Court below and seeks regular bail within one month from today, the same shall be considered on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the present order. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date Transmission Date