Patna High CourtCR. MISC./56487/2017rejected

Birendra Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2017-12-13Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.56487 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -84 Year- 2017 Thana -NAWADA MUFFASIL District- NAWADA =====================================

1. Birendra Yadav, Ram Swarup Yadav

2. Dinesh Yadav, S/o Shiv Balak Yadav

3. Sanjay Yadav, S/o Kuldip Yadav All are R/o Village - Puranadih, P.S. Muffasil, District - Nawada.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Arun For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Pushpa Sinha =====================================

CORAM:

HONOURABLE MR.

JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 13-12-2017 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Nawada Moffasil P.S. Case No. 84 of 2017, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The informant named the petitioners along with

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.56487 of 2017 (2) dt.13-12-2017 2/2 other accused persons and made specific allegation that Birendra Yadav, petitioner No. 1, Dinesh Yadav, petitioner No. 2 and Kuldeep Yadav made firing causing injury to Mithilesh Yadav on his chest, abdomen and arm. Coaccused, Sonu Yadav and Sanjay Yadav, petitioner No. 3, opened firing which hit one Kamlesh Yadav, who got fire arm injury on different part of his body.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the injuries are simple in nature.

There is counter version from both sides. There is a scuffle between the parties on account of land dispute, but it appears that there is specific allegation against the petitioners of firing, causing fire arm injury to Mithilesh Yadav and Kamlesh Yadav.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I do not find it a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The same is, accordingly, rejected.

If the petitioners, above named, surrender before the court below, their prayer for regular bail shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order of this Court.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Praveen-II/- U T