← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22911/2016rejected

Gopi Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-07-13Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22911 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -5 Year- 2015 Thana -BHADWAR District- GAYA ====================================================== Gopi Yadav, Son of Late Lochan Yadav, Resident of Village - Ramdohar, P.S. - Bhadwar (Dumariya), District - Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sri Yadav, Son of Late Lochan Yadav

3. Dinesh Yadav, Son of Sri Yadav Both residents of village - Ramdohar, P.S. - Bhadwar (Dumariya) District - Gaya.

4. Suresh Yadav, Son of Kheman Yadav

5. Kheman Yadav, Son of Chanari Yadav Both residents of village - Jagatpur, P.S. - Bhadwar (Dumariya), District - Gaya. .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Parties : Mr. B.M.P.Sinha(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 13-07-2016 This application has been filed seeking cancellation of bail granted to opposite parties no. 2 to 5 by virtue of an order dated 08.04.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. no. 7950/2016. The sole ground for cancellation of bail as taken in this application is that though the injuries on the informant side were grievous in nature, on the basis of wrong submission that the injury was simple, the opposite parties obtained the order of anticipatory bail in their favour.

There is no allegation in the application that the opposite parties, after having been released on bail, ever misused

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22911 of 2016 (2) dt.13-07-2016 2/2 the privilege of bail. In the application seeking anticipatory bail, the injury report was not brought on record. If in the order granting anticipatory bail, nature of injury has been mentioned to be simple in nature in place of grievous one, the privilege of anticipatory bail granting to the petitioner need not be taken back. Considering the above, I do not find any merit in the application. This application is accordingly rejected. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) rinkee/- U T