Dhurendra Sah @ Dhurander Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47668 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-350 Year-2013 Thana- MAJHAULIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Dhurendra Sah @ Dhurander Sah Son Of Dasai Sah Resident Of VillageOjha Mathiya, Ps- Majhaulia, Dist- West Champaran 2.

Bhokoli Sah @ Bhakoli Sah Son Of Kari Sah Resident Of Village- Ojha Mathiya, Ps- Majhaulia, Dist- West Champaran 3.

Awdesh Sah Son Of Suresh Sah Resident Of Village- Ojha Mathiya, PsMajhaulia, Dist- West Champaran 4.

Nand Lal Sah Son Of Bhakoli Sah Resident Of Village- Ojha Mathiya, PsMajhaulia, Dist- West Champaran 5.

Sagariya Devi Wife Of Darshan Sah Resident Of Village- Ojha Mathiya, PsMajhaulia, Dist- West Champaran 6.

Gajar Sah Son Of Kanchan Sah Resident Of Village- Ojha Mathiya, PsMajhaulia, Dist- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Akhileshwar Kumar Shrivastva, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 11-08-2023 Heard the parties.

The petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection with Majhaulia P.S. Case No. 350 of 2013 instituted under under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 307, 379, 427, 504 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 28.8.2013 by the informant, Sagir Mian.

As per the allegation in the FIR, the accused persons after sprinkling the kerosene oil lit the hut of the informant on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47668 of 2023(2) dt.11-08-2023 2/2 fire which led to burning of his crops, ornaments, clothes as also cash amount.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that there is omnibus allegation against the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the informant has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph-3 to show that all the petitioners have chequered history inasmuch as all of them are accused in number of criminal cases. Further, the FIR is of 2013 and now, ten years later, they have approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.

The facts on record clearly prohibits the Court from extending the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners which is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T