Patna High CourtCR. MISC./38073/2024bail rejected

Rajendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-05-17Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38073 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-398 Year-2023 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== 1.

Rajendra Yadav Son of Late Mahavir Yadav R/o Village-Dahariya, Ward No.10, P.S.- Chhatapur, District- Supaul 2.

Anmol Yadav @ Amoli Yadav Son of Late Mahavir Yadav R/o VillageDahariya, Ward No.10, P.S.- Chhatapur, District- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Surya Narayan Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Murli Dhar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 17-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Chhatapur P.S. Case No. 398 of 2023 instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 354B, 307, 379, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioners along with others are said to have assaulted the informant and his family members, due to which they sustained injury.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have submitted that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. The petitioners and the informant are co-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38073 of 2024(2) dt.17-05-2024 2/2 villager and next door neighbour. There is general and omnibus allegation against these petitioners. It is next submitted that the petitioners have two criminal antecedents.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the FIR and specific allegation of assault by means of iron rod is against them. Moreover, he further submitted that the petitioners having criminal antecedents. Hence, the petitioners do not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of injury and the fact that specific allegation of assault is against these petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. The prayer is rejected.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Arish/- U T