Bhavesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31277 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2020 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria ====================================================== 1.

BHAVESH YADAV 2.

Ranveer Yadav Both are S/O Bengo Yadav 3.

Bengo Yadav Son of Manohar Yadav 4.

Ravi Yadav Son of Manoj Yadav All are R/O Village - Bandehra, P.S. - Pasraha, District - Khagaria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER (The proceedings of the Court are being conducted through Video Conferencing and the Advocates joined the proceedings through Video Conferencing from their residence.) 05-08-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 386, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Informant has alleged that on 31.03.2020 at about 05:45 p.m., while he was cultivating in his field, FIR named accused including the petitioners came there and surrounded the informant and on the order given by Bengo Yadav( Petitioner no.3), Bhavesh Yadav (petitioner no.1) caught the informant and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31277 of 2020(5) dt.05-08-2021 2/2 co-accused Pritam fired upon the informant which hit his left thigh, as a result of which he fell down. Bengo Yadav also hit on the left leg of informant with rod. The cause of occurrence is said to be demand of Rs. 1 lac made by the accused persons from the informant which he did not pay.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case due to land dispute. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of injury report which supports the prosecution case and firearm injury on thigh was found to be grievous in nature, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, the prayer for bail of the petitioners is hereby dismissed.

However, petitioners if surrender and apply for regular Bail, same to be considered on same day without being prejudiced by rejection of Anticipatory Bail. (S. Kumar, J) Sanjay/- U T