Bindu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35323 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2019 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria ====================================================== 1.

BINDU YADAV, Son of Late Police Yadav Resident of Village - Purvi Thatha, P.S.-Mansi, Distt - Khagaria.

2.

Nitish Yadav @ Nitish Kumar Son of Bindu Yadav Resident of Village - Purvi Thatha, P.S. Mansi, Distt - Khagaria.

3.

Kailu Kumar @ Kelu Kumar @ Karmveer Son of Bindu Yadav Resident of Village - Purvi Thatha, P.S. Mansi, Distt - Khagaria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjeet Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Kanhaiya Kishore (App 100) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 09-08-2019 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Mansi P.S. Case No. 27 of 2019, disclosing offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation against the petitioner as per F.I.R. is that they entered inside the house of the informant for committing theft and taken away Rs.20,000/- and ornaments and several other articles and they fled away and they have been identified in the light of the bulb. It further appears that petitioners are accused in seven other cases.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as a matter of fact, petitioner no.1 is accused in several

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35323 of 2019(3) dt.09-08-2019 2/2 other case, but by typographical mistake, it has been mentioned against all the petitioners. Further nothing has been attributed against them. So far as, petitioners no.2 & 3 are concerned, they have no criminal antecedent.

Heard learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 also, they have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that petitioners are named in the F.I.R.

Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. However, in case, the petitioners no.2 and 3, if they may so surrender before the learned court below and make prayer for regular bail, which will be considered by the learned court below, on its own merit, and if possible, be disposed of on the same day. With the aforesaid, this application is dismissed (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sunil Shukla/- U T