Vijednra Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.62736 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-305 Year-2018 Thana- SHEKHPURA District- Sheikhpura ======================================================
1. Vijendra Yadav S/o Rajo Yadav,
2. Rajo Yadav @ Raji Yadav S/o Late Karu Yadav. Both are Resident of VillageMehus More, P.S. and District-Sheikhura. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar 2.
Suresh Prasad Sinha, s/o. Late Ram Lakhan Prasad, resident of vill. Mehus Mor, P.S. & District Sheikhpura, ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ram Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 19-02-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307,387, 384, 379/34 IPC registered in connection with Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 305/2018.
3. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in connection with petty disputes and the FIR has been instituted only as a prestige issue as the informant happens to be a practicing Advocate.
4. Learned counsel for the informant who has appeared upon notice, has filed an affidavit (show cause), inter alia, stating that the petitioner no. 1 has suppressed the fact that
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.62736 of 2018(3) dt.19-02-2019 2/2 he was also co-accused in Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 66/2016 (Annexure-A), while petitioner no. 2 has five cases by way of criminal antecedents whereas, he is accused in as many as 14 cases (Annexure-B). It is further submitted that the informant has sustained several injuries, two of them are grievous, as evident from the injury report (Annexure-C/1).
5. A copy of the affidavit of the OP No. 2 was served upon the petitioners more than two months ago on 13.12.2018, but the statements therein have not been controverted and no reply thereto has been filed.
6. In the above view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Bail petition stands dismissed.
(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/- U T