Rajesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61094 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-237 Year-2021 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria ====================================================== 1.

RAJESH YADAV SON OF LATE BANDELAL YADAV R/O VILLAGERAMPUR, WARD NO.- 06, P.S.- GOGRI, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA 2.

RANBIR YADAV SON OF BIRO YADAV R/O VILLAGE- RAMPUR, WARD NO.- 06, P.S.- GOGRI, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA 3.

SURAJ YADAV SON OF LATE RAJENDRA YADAV R/O VILLAGERAMPUR, WARD NO.- 06, P.S.- GOGRI, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA 4.

NITISH KUMAR SON OF SOHAN YADAV R/O VILLAGE- RAMPUR, WARD NO.- 06, P.S.- GOGRI, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Alok Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Madhuri Lata, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 01-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State and perused the case diary. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 323 and 50-4/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

It is a case of abduction of the informant, namely, Santosh Kumar and taken away by the petitioners forcefully from the Scorpio vehicle when he was returning with labourers on a tractor and the petitioners also fired upon him and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61094 of 2021(4) dt.01-08-2022 2/2 thereafter they were intercepted by the villagers of Rampur and apprehended the driver along with the Scorpio but the petitioners fled away from the place of occurrence. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Learned APP appearing for the State opposed the anticipatory bail and submitted that the informant in his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. disclosed the name of these petitioners as culprit.

After considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is rejected.

However, petitioners are directed to surrender before the court below and pray for regular bail and the court below may pass order without being prejudiced by this order. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T