Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Mahto v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50887 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-93 Year-2017 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== SANDEEP KUMAR @ SANDEEP MAHTO S/o Late Rama Mahto R/o village- Tikuliya, Nonia Patti, Chanpatiya, P.S.- Chanpatiya, District- West Champaran, Bettiah ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

Dhananjay Kumar S/o Jagdish Prasad R/o village- Bankat (Rice Mill), P.S.- Chanpatiya, District- West Champaran, Bettiah ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shyam Sundar Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 11-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chanpatiya P.S. Case No.93 of 2017 instituted under Sections 147,149,341,323,308,354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that earlier the accused persons teased his cousin sister in school and upon protest, he was assaulted. Accordingly, the FIR was lodged.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50887 of 2022(2) dt.11-01-2023 2/3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that omnibus allegation is there in the FIR and due to village rivalry, he has been dragged in the matter, although he was not present at the place of occurrence. Further submission is that he had no information about it which unfortunately caused delay. He however concedes that after the rejection of the anticipatory bail application in 2019 he delayed the matter. The last submission is that similar situate persons have been granted relief. Learned APP on the other hand opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail stating that the matter is of 2017 and even by his own admission, he preferred anticipatory bail in 2019 and thereafter upon rejection of the same, neither he surrendered nor chose to file any anticipatory bail in 2019-20 and as such he opposes the prayer.

Taking into account the sole ground of delay in approaching the court despite the fact that in 2019 his anticipatory bail was rejected, this Court is unable to extend him relief, which is accordingly rejected.

However, in case he surrenders before the concerned court within four weeks from today, the court will take into account the facts of the case including the materials on record and the relief that has been extended to similar situate person

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50887 of 2022(2) dt.11-01-2023 3/3 (Amit Kumar Singh) before taking a decision preferably on the same day.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Prakash Narayan /- U T