Ramanand Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38796 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-750 Year-2018 Thana- FORBESGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== 1.

Ramanand Mandal, Aged about 48 years, Male, S/o Fulchand Mandal, Resident of Village- Hingna Aurahi, P.S.- Simraha, District- Araria 2.

Manish Kumar @ Shanu, Aged about 24 years, Male, S/o Jagdish Mandal Resident of Village- Hingna Aurahi, P.S.- Simraha, District- Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 25-06-2019 Heard both sides.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in Forbesganj (Simraha) P.S. Case No.750 of 2018, registered under Sections 341, 342, 323, 353, 188, 332, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant, In-charge Block Education Officer, Forbesganj alleged that he went to inspect the school but the lock of the school was closed and many students were outside the gate of the school. The villagers disclosed that they have no key. The informant called Sunil Mandal, the husband of the Mukhiya, but in the meantime, petitioners and others abused and assaulted and prevented the informant to inspect the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38796 of 2019(2) dt.25-06-2019 2/2 school.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners being the villagers made complaint prior to institution of the case about non-distribution of Poshak and other articles but it appears that when the informant being Incharge Block Education Officer went to inspect the school in order to remove the defects or redress the complain, the petitioners abused and assaulted the informant and also prevented him from inspecting the school.

Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.

If the petitioners surrender in the court below, the learned court below shall consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioners on its own merit without being prejudiced from this order.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U T