Patna High CourtCR. MISC./42234/2019dismissed

Rakesh @ Monu Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar

2019-11-16Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42234 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-39 Year-2019 Thana- DAWATH District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.

RAKESH @ MONU CHOUDHARY Son of Parash Nath Choudhary Resident of Village - Koath, P.S.- Dawath, District - Rohtas (Sasaram) 2.

Parash Nath Choudhary Son of Late Ramrup Choudhary Resident of Village - Koath, P.S.- Dawath, District - Rohtas (Sasaram) 3.

Sonu Kumar @ Suresh Choudhary @ Suesh Kumar Singh Son of Parash Nath Choudhary Resident of Village - Koath, P.S.- Dawath, District - Rohtas (Sasaram) 4.

Master Choudhary @ Rahul Kumar Son of Birendra Choudhary Resident of Village - Koath, P.S.- Dawath, District - Rohtas (Sasaram) 5.

Mani Kumar @ Manish Kumar Son of Om Prakash Choudhary Resident of Village - Koath, P.S.- Dawath, District - Rohtas (Sasaram) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Chhote Lal Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ramchandra Sahni ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-11-2019 The application on behalf of petitioner no. 2 viz. Parash Nath Choudhary has already been dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 18.07.2019.

The petitioners no. 1, 3, 4 and 5 seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in connection with Dawath P.S. Case No. 39 of 2019 dated 02.03.2019 instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42234 of 2019(5) dt.16-11-2019 2/2 The accusation against the petitioners is of having assaulted the informant for not agreeing to work as his domestic help in his house. The resistance of the informant in working in the shop of the petitioners is because of his not being paid the wages for the period that he had earlier worked.

Considering this aspect of the matter, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. However, if the petitioners surrender before the court below and seek bail, the court below shall take into account all necessary facts and shall pass orders in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the fact that the present petition has not been entertained. The petition is dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) krishna/- U T