Patna High CourtCR. MISC./8918/2016rejected

Ramesh Bhuiyan v. The State Of Bihar

2016-07-13Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8918 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -11 Year- 2015 Thana -DUMARIA District- GAYA ====================================================== Ramesh Bhuiyan Son of Briksh Bhuiyan Resident of village - Bikopur, P.S. Maigra, District - Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Rita Verma, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 13-07-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Dumariya P.S. Case No. 11/15 registered under Section 307 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act.

The S.H.O. of Dumariya Police Station got information that many Maoists were leading towards the hillock. When the raiding party went there, Rajesh Yadav, Dinesh Yadav and this petitioner were found talking on mobiles and in the meantime firing was made at the raiding party. It is alleged that the petitioner was doing the job of informer of the Maoists. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case was lodged by the SHO of Dumariya and, for the same offence, another case was also lodged being Dumariaya P.S. Case No.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8918 of 2016 (6) dt.13-07-2016 2/2 12/15 wherein the petitioner has been named and he has already been granted anticipatory bail vide order passed in Cr. Misc. No. 9959/16. It is submitted that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent but it appears that the informant has very categorically stated that the petitioner and others were indulged in passing information to the Maoists about the movement of the police and, on such, the Maoists exploded IED and made indiscriminate firing.

Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in Dumariya P.S. Case No.11/15. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Dilip/- U T