Hanuman Yadav @ Anil Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3248 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-164 Year-2019 Thana- SURYAPUR District- Rohtas ====================================================== HANUMAN YADAV @ ANIL YADAV, Son of Ramal Yadav, Resident of Village - Agrer kala, P.S.- Suryapura, Distt.- Rohtas ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Bhaskar Shankar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Dhaneshwar Prasad Gupta, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 17-02-2021 As prayed for, let the learned counsel for the petitioner remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office vide it's note, dated 08.01.2021, within four weeks of starting of the Court proceeding in physical mode properly.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Suryapura P.S. Case No. 164 of 2019, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikramganj, Rohtas.

The accusation is that nine persons, named in the first information report, including the petitioner, variously armed with weapon, came at the door of the informant, Bipin Bihari, and forbid his son not to tie cow there, when son of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3248 of 2021(2) dt.17-02-2021 2/2 informant made protest claiming the land, then, Krishna Murari started to cause assault through fists and slaps to the son of the informant. Thereafter, informant and his wife rushed to save their son, then, they were also assaulted. In the meantime, Chinta Devi took katta from her house and handed over the same to the petitioner, then, petitioner fired through katta causing injury at the waist of their son.

The prayer of the bail of the petitioner was refused earlier, on merit, vide Cr. Misc. No. 13334 of 2020 on 16.06.2020.

Taking into consideration the nature of allegation, as made against the petitioner, I do not find any reason to reconsider the prayer of bail of the petitioner for the present. The prayer for bail is rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Shamshad/- U T