Sanjay Rai @ Sanjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.59464 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -239 Year- 2017 Thana -MAHUA District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ====================================================== Sanjay Rai @ Sanjay Kumar, S/o Yadunandan Rai, Resident of VillageGorigama, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Sri Narsingh Tanti (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 23-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 239 of 2017, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 326, 307, 302, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act Allegedly pillar was being constructed and the informant, his father, cousin and uncles were there and then the petitioner and other co-accused came and on the order of Sanjeet Rai and Krishna Kumar Bhargav, the petitioner opened indiscriminate firing on the father of the informant causing injury on his head, face and right arm, resulting, he succumbed to the injury. It is alleged that the petitioner used to purchase disputed

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.59464 of 2017 (3) dt.23-01-2018 2/2 land and forcibly used to take possession.

Submission is of false implication and that the brother of the petitioner is mukhiya and he has supported his brother in mukhiya election resulting, his false implication. There is land dispute between the parties, on the date and time of the occurrence the petitioner was in Tejpur, Assam and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration. The learned A.P.P. duly assisted by the learned counsel for the informant seriously opposes the prayer of prearrest bail by submitting that during investigation also the allegation against the petitioner has substantiated. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering the allegation attributed against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant privilege of pre-arrest bail to him and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 239 of 2017, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T