Bipin Singh And ORS. v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.25982 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -321 Year- 2014 Thana -GHOSI District- JEHANABAD ======================================================
1. Bipin Singh son of Ram Pravesh Singh
2. Nagmani Singh son of Ranvijay Singh
3. Ram Pravesh Singh son of Ramvilash Singh
4. Aarsi Ram @ Aarsi Kumar son of Rajender Ram
5. Jai Ram Yadav son of Suresh Yadav
6. Dharmender Kumar son of Ganauri Mistri
7. Mukesh Pandit son of Surender Pandit
8. Raja Kumar @ Raja Vishwakarma son of Triveni Vishwakarma
9. Kanhaiya Mahuri @ Kanhayia Kumar son of Sunil Ram @ Sunil Mahuri. All are resident of Village- Chiri, Post office- Bharthu, Police Station- Ghosi, District- Jehanabad.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan(Spl.Pp) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-07-2015 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Ghosi P.S. vide F.I.R. No. 321 of 2014 instituted under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 325, 379, 354, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1) (x) (xi) of the S.C./S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.
The prosecution story, in brief, is that when the informant opposed to realize Rs.5,000/- from each beneficiary of Indira Awash Scheme, all the petitioners are said to have
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25982 of 2015 (2) dt.16-07-2015 assaulted and defamed the informant by calling her caste name and used to abuse with vulgar words.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have been falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation made against the petitioners. On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the alleged occurrence is said to have been taken in public place. Under the aforesaid circumstance, the anticipatory bail is not maintainable as per the provisions of the S.C./S.T. Act. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The payer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected. However, if the petitioners surrender in the court below within four weeks and pray for regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.
(Sudhir Singh, J) P.K./- U T