Shyam Sundar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.43493 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -176 Year- 2015 Thana -TRIVENIGANJ District- SUPAUL ====================================================== Shyam Sundar Yadav Son of Ram Prasad Yadav Resident ofVillage - Kukurdhari, Police Station - Triveniganj, District - Supaul .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Nikesh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dashrath Mehta, (APP) For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 14-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Triveniganj P.S. Case No. 176 of 2015 registered under Sections 147, 149, 323, 504, 506, 384 and 379 of the I.P.C. pending in the Court of C.J.M., Supaul.

The accusation is that the petitioner along with 9 others named in the F.I.R. and 4-5 others reached at the field of the informant and co-accused Mukesh Kumar made demand of Rs. 1 lakh upon pointing the pistol at his temple region, in that course, this petitioner gave farsa blow at his head.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, in fact, the informant of the present case and others

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43493 of 2015 (2) dt.14-10-2015 2/2 tried to grab the land of co-accused Ked Narain Yadav, due to that reasons occurrence took place regarding which Triveniganj P.S. Case No. 177 of 2015 was instituted against the informant of the present case and several others.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner with submission that there is specific allegation against the petitioner to give farsa blow at the head of the informant and the injury is found grievous in nature, as detailed in the order dated 04.08.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Supaul vide A.B.A. No. 720 of 2015, whereby prayer of the petitioner was refused, while the others have been allowed anticipatory bail.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the allegation, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this application stands rejected.

However, petitioner is directed to surrender before the Trial Court and pray for regular bail, which shall be decided without being prejudiced by the present order. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) Shail/- U T