Harendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38311 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2019 Thana- SANDESH District- Bhojpur ====================================================== 1.

HARENDRA YADAV Son of Seth Yadav Resident of Village - Janesara, P.S.- Sandesh, District- Bhojpur 2.

Binod Yadav Son of Seth Yadav Resident of Village - Janesara, P.S.- Sandesh, District- Bhojpur 3.

Mahendra Yadav Son of Late Devrajit Yadav Resident of Village - Janesara, P.S.- Sandesh, District- Bhojpur 4.

Rajesh Yadav Son of Mahendra Yadav Resident of Village - Janesara, P.S.- Sandesh, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 12-09-2019 This application with respect to petitioner No.3 Mahendra Yadav was dismissed as withdrawn on the submission that he was arrested during pendency of this application. Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 4 seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in connection with Sandesh P.S. Case No. 35 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegation against the petitioners is that they indiscriminately fired, causing injuries to son of the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38311 of 2019(4) dt.12-09-2019 2/2 Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is case and counter case between the parties with respect to land dispute and persons from petitioners' side also received injuries and in this case injuries were caused on thigh and legs.

Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the informant, who has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that there is repeated firing by the petitioners and son of the informant received firearm injuries.

In view of above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

However, if they surrender and pray for regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit and, if possible, to be disposed of on the same day.

With the above observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U T