Laddu Yadav @ Dinesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.36259 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -15 Year- 2018 Thana -NAWADA District- NAWADA ====================================================== Laddu Yadav @ Dinesh Kumar Son of Late Lakhan Yadav R/o Village Nehalu Chak (Sideshwarpur), P/S Nawada, District Nawada. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.32013 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -15 Year- 2018 Thana -NAWADA District- NAWADA ====================================================== Bablu Yadav, Son of Sri Vijay Prasad, Resident of Village- Nehaluchak, Siddheshwarpur, P.S.- Nawada, District- Nawada. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

(In both the cases) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur with Mr. Nilesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 01-08-2018 Both the application, one is for anticipatory bail and another is for regular bail, have been heard together as they arise out of same P.S.Case number, i.e., Nawada Town P.S.Case No. 15 of 2018.

So far petitioner of first case is concerned, submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is named in the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36259 of 2018 (3) dt.01-08-2018 2/2 FIR and other co-accused persons boarded the deceased in a Bolero vehicle and taken him away and thereafter his dead body was found. Further submission is that the allegation falsifies in view of paragraphs 62 and 64 of the case diary and the witnesses have not named this petitioner. So far petitioner Bablu Singh in second case is concerned, submission is identical to that of first case.

Heard learned APP also.

In view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioner Laddu Yadav. He should surrender and pray for regular bail, which shall be considered on its own merit, without being prejudiced by this order. Similarly, prayer for bail of petitioner Bablu Yadav is concerned, the same is rejected in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.

In view of above observation, both the applications are dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U