Vidya Bhushan Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4359 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-116 Year-2019 Thana- SARAI RANJAN District- Samastipur ====================================================== VIDYA BHUSHAN RAI SON OF SHRI LAL BABU RAY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BAKARPUR, P.O.- CHAK SIKANDAR ,P.S.- RAJA PAKAR DISTRICT- VAISHALI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 39381 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-116 Year-2019 Thana- SARAI RANJAN District- Samastipur ====================================================== SUNIL KUMAR @ SUNIL RAI Son of Lalbabu Rai Resident of VillageTeliya Banarsi Chowk, P.S.- Rajapakar, District- Vaishali at Hajipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 4359 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kishun Chand Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 39381 of 2020) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sachin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 25-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 116 of 2019 registered under Sections 392, 412 and 120B of the I.P.C.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4359 of 2021(6) dt.25-01-2022 2/2 that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case due to enmity and grudge. Petitioners have no concern with the alleged occurrence.

Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioners by contending that the petitioners have actively participated in the alleged occurrence. Further he submits that petitioners are accused in several criminal cases. Hence, the petitioners do not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the State, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioners is rejected. shailendra/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T