Rakesh Paswan And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.37913 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -132 Year- 2016 Thana -SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSAMASTIPUR ======================================================
1. Rakesh Paswan S/o Sajjan Paswan,
2. Tulsi Paswan S/o Late Ram Chandar Paswan,
3. Bharat Paswan
4. Laxman Paswan both son of Rakesh Paswan.
5. Shankar Paswan
6. Shambhu Paswan both sons of Nanku Paswan
7. Satrughan Paswan S/o Late Jhari Lal Paswan,
8. Sonelal Paswan S/o Late Janak Paswan, all resident of Village- Laguniya Raghukanth, P.S.- Samastipur (M), District- Samastipur.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-09-2016 Heard Sri Yogendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel , who was assisted by Sri Shambhu Sharan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Eight petitioners, apprehending their arrest in Samastipur (M) P.S. Case No. 132 of 2016 registered for the offence under section 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there was case and counter case in between the parties. He
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37913 of 2016 (3) dt.16-09-2016 2/2 further submits that save and except offences under Section 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code all others Sections are bailable. He further submits in the F.I.R. it is true that allegation has been made against Rakesh Paswan, there is no allegation of overt act against other remaining petitioners i.e. petitioner no. 2 to 8. On aforesaid grounds a prayer has been made for extending the privilege anticipatory bail.
However, after perusal of the F.I.R. the Court is satisfied that it is not a fit case to grant privilege of anticipatory bail.
The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U T