Sonu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINALAPPEAL (SJ) No.3777 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2021 Thana- SC/ST District- Siwan ====================================================== 1.

SONU YADAV SON OF NANDJI YADAV R/O VILLAGE- BHADA KALAN, P.S.- MUFFASIL, DIST.- SIWAN 2.

ARMAN ALI SON OF AJMUDDIN MIYA R/O VILLAGEMOHIUDDINPUR, MAHODIPUR P.S. MUFFASIL, DIST.- SIWAN 3.

MUBARAK HUSSAIN SON OF RAHIM MIYA R/O VILLAGEMOHIUDDINPUR, MAHODIPUR P.S. MUFFASIL, DIST.- SIWAN ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Indrajit Kumar Ram Son of Surendra Ram Resident of villageMahodipur,P.S-Muffasil,District-Siwan ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Irshad Ahmad Khan For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sadanand Paswan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 27-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 27.07.2021 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Siwan in connection with SC/ST P.S. Case No. 03 of 2021 registered under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(r)(s)/3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellants has been rejected.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3777 of 2021(6) dt.27-03-2023 2/2 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case due to village politics. There is general and omnibus allegation of assault against the appellants. He further submits that the appellants have got clean antecedents. Learned Special P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellants by contending that the appellants are named in the first information report. There is specific allegation of assault and hurling abusive language of caste to the informant against the appellants. Therefore, the appellants do not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions advanced on behalf of the parties as well as the nature of allegations made against the appellants, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellants. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

shailendra/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T