Banbari Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48758 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-178 Year-2023 Thana- BHAGALPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== 1.

BANBARI YADAV SON OF SOMIN YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGEAGARPUR, PS- LODIPUR, DIST- BHAGALPUR 2.

AMIT YADAV @ JACK SUMAR ARYA SON OF SHANKAR YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- AGARPUR, PS- LODIPUR, DISTBHAGALPUR 3.

SUMIT YADAV SON OF SHANKAR YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGEAGARPUR, PS- LODIPUR, DIST- BHAGALPUR ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

MULO DEVI WIFE OF NARO YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NAYA TOLA, AGARPUR, PS- LODIPUR, DIST- BHAGALPUR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Umeshanand Pandit, APP Mr.Swapnil Kumar Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 29-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 and learned APP for the State. 2.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.178/2023, registered for the offence punishable u/s 406, 420, 379, 354(B), 467, 468, 470, 326, 120(B) and 34 of the IPC.

3.

As per the prosecution case, the complainant purchased 19 decimals land by grandson of Rajendra Singh of Khatiyani raiyat namely Karu Singh through registered sale deed. It is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48758 of 2023(4) dt.29-08-2023 2/3 alleged that they along with other co-accused assaulted the informant's side by means of various deadly weapons. Petitioner no.1 is said to be the order giver to demolish the house of the complainant and also assaulted the complainant. Petitioner no.2 is said to have assaulted the complainant with butt of three nut on her back and petitioner no.3 is said to have started breaking the wall adjacent to the shop.

4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case. No such occurrence, in the manner as alleged, has ever taken place. The allegation leveled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. It is submitted that the said land was purchased by the petitioner no.1 in the year 2017 and Civil suit is pending between the parties. Petitioners have four criminal antecedent.

5.

Learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the O.P. No.2 opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that the said land was purchased by the complainant, thereafter, the petitioner no.1 has purchased this land from another person. The said land was purchased by the complainant before the petitioner and a suit is pending in the court below.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48758 of 2023(4) dt.29-08-2023 3/3 6.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on their behalf is hereby rejected. 7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

8.

However, petitioners are at liberty to surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and seek regular bail and the learned Court below would pass order, preferably, on the same day, in accordance with law. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T