← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./35073/2020bail rejected

Sunil Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2021-03-18Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35073 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2020 Thana- FALKA District- Katihar ====================================================== 1.

SUNIL YADAV Son of Jagdish Yadav Resident of Village - Pothia, P.S. - Falka (Pothia), Dist - Katihar.

2.

Prince Yadav S/o Sunil Yadav Resident of Village - Pothia, P.S. - Falka (Pothia), Dist - Katihar.

3.

Piyush Yadav S/o Sunil Yadav Resident of Village - Pothia, P.S. - Falka (Pothia), Dist - Katihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arun Kumar Mandal For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 18-03-2021 Heard both sides.

The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail petition of petitioner No.3, Piyush Yadav, as he has already been arrested. Prayer is allowed.

The anticipatory bail petition of petitioner No.3 is dismissed as withdrawn.

The petitioners No.1 and 2 apprehend their arrest in Falka (Pothia) P.S. case No. 200/2020 registered under Section 341, 323, 386, 427, 504, 34 of the IPC.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35073 of 2020(2) dt.18-03-2021 2/2 petitioners are innocent and they have committed no offence. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case on account of land dispute but it appears that the petitioners have got criminal antecedent and petitioner No.1 is accused in five criminal cases and petitioner No.2 is accused in two criminal cases. There is specific allegation that petitioners demanded extortion of Rs. Five lakhs.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners No. 1 and 2 on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T