Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36992/2022dismissed

Badiujjma @ Sattu v. The State Of Bihar

2022-11-16Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36992 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2020 Thana- RAHIKA District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.

BADIUJJMA @ SATTU SON OF LATE ABDUL HAMID RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SAGAUNA, P.S.- RAHIKA, DISTRICT- MDHUVANI 2.

MD. KAMRAN SON OF ABDUL BARIK RESIDENT OF VILLAGESAGAUNA, P.S.- RAHIKA, DISTRICT- MDHUVANI 3.

MD. SAHRUKH ALAM SON OF ABDUL BARIK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SAGAUNA, P.S.- RAHIKA, DISTRICT- MDHUVANI 4.

SALIM PARWEJ SON OF LATE ABDUL MALLIK RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- SAGAUNA, P.S.- RAHIKA, DISTRICT- MDHUVANI 5.

AMBAR SON OF SALIM PARWEJ RESIDENT OF VILLAGESAGAUNA, P.S.- RAHIKA, DISTRICT- MDHUVANI 6.

SAMIULLAH SON OF LATE ATTAULLAH RESIDENT OF VILLAGESAGAUNA, P.S.- RAHIKA, DISTRICT- MDHUVANI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Priyanka Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 16-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Rahika P.S. Case No. 61 of 2020 registered under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 324, 325, 326, 380, 341, 342, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhubani.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36992 of 2022(8) dt.16-11-2022 2/2 that earlier prayer of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail was rejected by this Court on 29.03.2022 vide Cr. Misc. No. 40018 of 2021.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioners by contending that earlier prayer of the petitioners was rejected by this Court on merit. Further he submits that in the instant case, there is no fresh ground to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the State, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, prayer of the petitioners is again rejected.

shailendra/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T