Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22852/2015dismissed

Sitaram Kushwaha And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2015-09-02Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22852 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -4 Year- 2015 Thana -SATHI DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Sitaram Kushwaha son of Late Bachu Kushwaha

2. Baleshwar Sah son of Late Mangani Sah

3. Prabhu Sah son of Late Mangani Sah

4. Baliram Sah son of Late Mangani Sah

5. Manoj Sah son of Baliram Sah

6. Lal Krishna Kushwaha son of Sitaram Kushwaha.

7. Sudama Kushwaha son of Late Ramrup Mahto

8. Rambhajan Yadav son of Sitaram Yadav.

9. Nipu Yadav son of Ram Bhajan Yadav

10. Shambhu Yadav son of Late Kailash Yadav all resident of villageBhagana, Police Station- Sathi, district- west Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Kumar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-09-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in Sathi P.S.Case No. 4/2015 registered under Sections 323, 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of Arms Act, pending in the court of Sri B.Shukla, Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah. The informant Sunaina Devi has alleged in her written petition that accused persons including these petitioners variously armed with deadly weapon formed an unlawful assembly, came at the door of the informant and committed the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22852 of 2015 (3) dt.02-09-2015 2/2 murder of her husband by using fire arm due to land dispute. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case due to land dispute. It is further submitted that no specific injury has been attributed against the petitioners.

On behalf of the State and the informant, it has been submitted that the petitioners are named in the FIR and they have played role in commission of the murder of the deceased. Considering the allegation made in the FIR, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the above named petitioners and the same is rejected.

(Sudhir Singh, J) singh/- U T