Lokan Yadav @ Sukhdev Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44639 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2014 Thana- NAWADA District- Nawada ====================================================== LOKAN YADAV @ SUKHDEV YADAV, Son of Munshi Yadav, Resident of Village - Jamuanvan, P.S.- Nawada, Distt. - Nawada. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sheo Kumar Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 19-07-2019 Petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in connection with Nawada Town (Kadirganj) P.S. Case No. 144 of 2014, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 337, 338, 307, 333, 216A, 224, 225, 341, 353, 427, 379, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada. As per FIR police got information that some miscreants were preparing to commit murder and reached there and accused persons started fleeing. However, one of the accused persons was arrested and in the meantime local people started pelting stones and made firing on the police party and eight persons were named, including the petitioner along with 20-25 unknown persons. There is further allegation that four co-accused persons tried to snatch Government revolver of Sub Inspector of Police and thereafter police was forced to fire. It is further alleged that villagers have earlier

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44639 of 2019(2) dt.19-07-2019 2/2 kidnapped the Panchayat Pramukh and also damaged his vehicle and moreover the case is of the year 2014.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though he is named in the FIR but no specific allegation has been attributed against him and he has falsely been implicated and there is case and counter case and counter case is earlier to the present case. Heard learned APP, who has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the ground that petitioner is named in the FIR and the case is of the year 2014 and after five years he has come for anticipatory bail in this case.

In view of above facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He may surrender and pray for regular bail.

With the above observation, this application is dismissed. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U T