Kush Kumar @ Kush Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54794 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-131 Year-2013 Thana- ADAPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== KUSH KUMAR @ KUSH KUMAR YADAV SON OF LATE RAM CHARITRA YADAV RESIDENT VILLAGE - BARAWA KALA GHORASAHAN, WARD NO. 13, P.O JHANJHARA, P.S- GHORASAHAN, DIST- EAST CHAMPARAN. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Amitesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 30-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within four weeks. In the eventuality of non-removal of defects within undertaken period, the office will place the matter before the Bench.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Aadapur P.S. Case No. 131 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 448, 380, 447, 302 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioner along with other co-accused is that they killed the father of the informant. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54794 of 2021(2) dt.30-06-2022 2/2 Petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. The specific allegation of over act is attributed against one Bindeshwari Rai and petitioner was only member of the mob.

Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioners is serious in nature, hence they do not deserve anticipatory bail.

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

However, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail and the learned Court below would pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order on the very date of surrender considering the fact that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and petitioner was only the member of the mob.

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