Jado Yadav @ Jago Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.58625 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2018 Thana- SIMULTALLA District- Jamui ======================================================

1. Jado Yadav @ Jago Yadav, son of Bhutka Yadav, resident of village - Bengalidih, P.S. Chandramandih, District- Jamui.

2. Sintu Yadav, son of Bhado Yadav, resident of village- Nagwey, P.S.- Simultalla, District- Jamui.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Sri Navin Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-09-2018 Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Navin Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Two petitioners, who have been arrayed as accused in the F.I.R., with specific accusation, apprehending their arrest have prayed for grant of bail in connection with Simultalla P.S. Case No. 8 of 2018 , registered for the offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504, 506, 448 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in the event of their arrest or surrender. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that many of the accused who were named in the F.I.R. have already been extended the privilege of anticipatory bail by the learned court below itself. He further submits that both petitioners and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58625 of 2018(2) dt.20-09-2018 2/2 informant's sides were agnates and land dispute was going on, and as such, a prayer has been made for granting anticipatory bail, whereas, Sri Navin Kumar Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor by way of referring to the facts disclosed in the F.I.R. submits that there is specific accusation against both petitioners and case of petitioners is not exactly similar to other accused persons who were arrayed as accused in the F.I.R. Considering the fact that there is direct accusation in the F.I.R. against petitioners, there is no reason to entertain the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) praful/- U T