Jogindra Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.2 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -174 Year- 2017 Thana -BUNIADGANJ District- GAYA ======================================================
1. Jogindra Yadav son of Sri Soharai Yadav
2. Birendra Yadav son of Sri Soharai Yadav
3. Ravi Yadav son of Sri Soharai Yadav
4. Jitendra Yadav @ Jitendra Kumar, son of Late Rajendra Yadav
5. Upendra Yadav @ Upendra Kumar, son of Late Rajendra Yadav
6. Bamb Yadav son of Late Dwarika Yadav
7. Pintu Yadav son of Sri Birendra Yadav
8. Mintu Yadav @ Mintu Kumar, son of Sri Birendra Yadav All residents of village - Shekhabigha, P.S. - Buniyadganj, District - Gaya.
9. Gandhi Yadav son of Sri Shiva Yadav resident of village Pandeshbigha, P.S. - Khizersarai, Dist - Gaya.
.... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Sadanand Paswan, SPP. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against refusal of the prayer for anticipatory bail by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Gaya in connection with Buniyadganj P.S.Case No. 174 of 2017 registered under Sections 147,148,149,323,307,354 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3(s)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act. A bare perusal of the FIR prima facie discloses
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2 of 2018 (4) dt.16-02-2018 offence under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for the purpose of consideration of this appeal for anticipatory bail. Hence, bar under Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is applicable. Therefore, the impugned order requires no interference and accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.
(Birendra Kumar, J) Nitesh/- U T