Sanjay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37193 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-192 Year-2018 Thana- PIPRA District- Supaul ====================================================== 1.

Sanjay Yadav, Son of Late Parmeshwari Yadav, Resident of Village - Kaushalipatti, P.S.- Pipra, District- Supaul 2.

Ravindra Yadav, Son of Sukhay Yadav, Resident of Village - Kaushalipatti, P.S.- Pipra, District- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Madhav Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 19-09-2019 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 192 of 2018, disclosing offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506, 509, 354, 353 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It appears that informant in pursuance of the higher official was conducted an Aamsabha for selection of Sevika and Sahayika and during the meeting one Rajesh Kumar, the petitioner and other accused persons have taken away the register and fled away from there.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they were only member of Aamsabha. They have falsely been implicated in this case. Allegation is against one Rajesh Kumar.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37193 of 2019(3) dt.19-09-2019 2/2 Heard learned A.P.P. also who has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the materials collected during the investigation disclosed that one Sweta Kumari has already been selected and due to that Rajesh Kumar husband of one Pinki Kumari, not being satisfied with the same in collusion with the petitioner have taken away the register and disrupted the Aamsabha and as such, they are also responsible for the said crime.

Having heard both sides, in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, however, the petitioner may move before the learned court below for regular bail which will be considered by the learned court below, on its own merit, and if possible, be disposed of on the same day. With the aforesaid, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sunil Shukla/- U T