Ramanand Yadav @ Ramanand Prasad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42276 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-308 Year-2020 Thana- BELAGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.
RAMANAND YADAV @ RAMANAND PRASAD S/O DEOCHAND YADAV @ DEO CHARAN YADAV R/o village- Imaliyachak, P.S.- Atri, District- Gaya 2.
Manoj Yadav S/o Krishna Yadav R/o village- Akauni Naudiha, P.S.- Khizersarai, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sanjay Kr. Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ajay Kumar No. 2 Mr.Ajay Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 19-05-2022 Heard learned counsels for the parties.
Petitioners apprehend their arrest in Belaganj P.S. Case No.308 of 2020 registered under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 324, 308, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the informant is a samdhin of the petitioner no.1. The informant has lodged this case only to save her skin. Petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail by contending that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. Petitioner no.1 is alleged to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42276 of 2021(5) dt.19-05-2022 2/2 have assaulted the informant with gadasa on her head due to which she sustained injuries. When the younger son of the informant came to save, he was also assaulted by petitioner no.2. It is also submitted that petitioner no.2 along with other accused is alleged to have assaulted her neighbour Ramchandra Yadav on account of which his hand was broken. The injuries sustained by the injured are corroborated by the injury reports. Therefore, the petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail. Having considered the facts aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, their prayer for bail is rejected. (Arvind Srivastava, J) Harish/- U T