Reyasat Ansari @ Gorakh Ansari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3870 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2021 Thana- SASARAM MUFFSIL District- Rohtas ====================================================== Reyasat Ansari @ Gorakh Ansari Son of Shaiyad Ansari Resident of VillageKarup, P.S.- Sasaram (Muffasil),District- Rohtas at Sasaram. ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr.Babu Nandan Prasad For the Respondent/s :
Mr.Binay Krishna ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 13-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special P.P. for the State.
This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act') against the refusal of prayer of bail vide order dated 17.08.2021, passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Sasaram (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.206 of 2021, registered under Sections 341, 323, 354(B), 307, 448, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST Act and 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant is said to have entered into the house of the informant with lathi, danda and started firing due to which the members of the informant's family sustained injuries.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3870 of 2021(2) dt.13-12-2021 2/2 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case. There is case and counter case. No specific overt act is alleged against the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant is in custody since 08.06.2021 and the appellant has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the memo of appeal. Learned Special P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and submitted that the appellant was also involved in the occurrence.
Having considered the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected.
However, the appellant may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.) Sanjay/- U T