← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./55087/2017rejected

Sukh Binder @ Sokhan Yadav @ Sokhan v. The State Of Bihar

2017-11-24Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.55087 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -96 Year- 2017 Thana -EKANGARSARAI District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Sukh Binder @ Sokhan Yadav @ Sokhan, S/o Late Kuldip Prasad, R/o Village- Ruchunpura, P.S.- Ekangarsarai, District- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER -------------- 24-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ekangarsarai P.S. Case No.96 of 2017 registered under Sections 341, 323, 307 and 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hilsa, Nalanda. The accusation is that while the informant and the members of his team were engaged in fixing the pipe for supply of the gas, at that time, two persons, named in the F.I.R., including the petitioner came there and caused injury to the members of the team of the informant.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55087 of 2017 (2) dt.24-11-2017 2/2 submits that while the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. but no specific overt act is attributed to him. The informant and others were engaged in cutting the soil for fixing the gas pipeline and on protest made by the petitioner, they did not stop the work, due to that reason, there was hot exchange of words in between them. Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the trial court and pray for regular bail, which shall be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T