Vikrama Yadav @ Vikrama Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44394 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-241 Year-2022 Thana- DUMARIAGHAT District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Vikrama Yadav @ Vikrama Rai S/O Late Chanar Yadav R/O VillageDhangadahan, Ps. Dumariyaghat, Dist. East Champaran 2.

Pawan Yadav @ Puwan Yadav S/O Vikrama Yadav @ Vikrama Rai R/O Village- Dhangadahan, Ps. Dumariyaghat, Dist. East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar No.III, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kanhaiya Kishore, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Piyush Kumar, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 05-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Dumariyaghat P.S. Case No. 241 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran.

3. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that the petitioners along with other accused persons have killed the informant's husband due to some old dispute.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44394 of 2023(3) dt.05-10-2023 2/2 merely on the basis of suspicion the petitioners have been made accused in the present case. He further submits that there is no eye-witness in the present case. The petitioners have no criminal antecedents as mentioned in para-3 of the bail application.

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the petitioners are also involved in the present case. Hence, they do not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected.

7. However, if the petitioners surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail, the learned Court below would pass order on the same day in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order, considering the fact that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) anand/- U T