← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./7505/2021rejected

Bajrang Lal Banaita v. The State Of Bihar

2022-03-24Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7505 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2019 Thana- PHULPARAS District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.

BAJRANG LAL BANAITA Son of Late Jagarnathi Yadav Resident of Bathanaha, P.S. Phulparas, District - Madhubani. 2.

.RAHUL KUMAR YADAV @ RAHUL YADAV Son of Bajrang Lal Banaita Resident of Bathanaha, P.S. Phulparas, District - Madhubani. 3.

SUJIT YADAV Son of Jageshwar Yadav Resident of Bathanaha, P.S. Phulparas, District - Madhubani.

4.

JAGESHWAR YADAV Son of Late Jagarnathi Yadav Resident of Bathanaha, P.S. Phulparas, District - Madhubani. 5.

CHANDESHWAR YADAV Son of Late Awadh Lal Yadav Resident of Bathanaha, P.S. Phulparas, District - Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shivnandan Bharti For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 24-03-2022 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and the State.

Petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Phulparas P.S. Case No. 114 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under section 447, 341, 323, 324, 308, 379, 354, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report and have been falsely implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7505 of 2021(8) dt.24-03-2022 2/2 case due to previous enmity. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent.

Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that petitioners are named accused in the first information report and there is specific allegation of assault against them which is supported by the injuries. Petitioners, therefore, do not deserve to be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T