Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.50236 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2018 Thana- LAXMIPUR District- Jamui ======================================================

1. Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Yadav S/o Brahmdeo Yadav, Resident of Khirmojana, P.S.- Laxmipur, District- Jamui.

2. Mahesh Manjhi S/o Rital Manjhi,

3. Dukhi Manjhi S/o Late Rameshwar Manjhi,

4. Jogi Manjhi S/o Guja Manjhi,

5. Ram Khelawan Manjhi S/o Nago Manjhi,

6. Santosh Manjhi S/o Late Mattal Manjhi, Petitioner No.2 to 6 are residents Duwara Tari, P.S.- Laxmipur, DistrictJamui.

7. Niraj Kumar @ Niraj Yadav S/o Jayram Yadav, resident of village - Khirmojana, P.S.- Laxmipur, District- Jamui.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners :

Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 11-02-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 385, 506, 504, 224 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 33(B) of the Indian Forest Act registered in connection with Laxmipur P.S. Case No. 10 of 2018.

3. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated on the accusation under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act and thrust of accusation against the petitioners for the offence under Indian Forest Act is bailable. It is submitted that there is no injury report on record to corroborate the accusation of assault. The petitioners claim clean antecedents.

4. Learned APP on the basis of the case diary opposes the anticipatory bail petition, submitting that the witnesses have

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50236 of 2018(6) dt.11-02-2019 2/2 supported the prosecution case. Subsequently, the petitioner nos. 1 and 7 are said to have obstructed the vehicle of the forest officials, called 20-25 villagers and all of them surrounded the forest officials and fled away with the goods. Thereafter, they tried to get the arrested five labourers (petitioner nos. 2 to 6) freed.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and gravity of offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed.

6. If the petitioners surrender and seek regular bail before the learned trial Court, the same shall be considered on its own merit in accordance with law expeditiously and without being prejudiced by any observation in the present order.

BT/- (Vikash Jain, J) U T