Munilal Yadav @ Munesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48538 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2019 Thana- MAHILA P.S. District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== MUNILAL YADAV @ MUNESH YADAV Son of Bhuto Yadav Resident of Village - Parghari, P.S.- Rajoun, Dist.- Banka. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Tara Devi W/o Munilal Yadav @ Munesh Yadav At present Resident of Village - Naya Tola Barari, Ward No.29, P.S.- Barari, Dist.- Bhagalpur. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Md. Najmul Hodda For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Anand Kishore Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 04-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bhagalpur Mahila P.S. Case No. 12 f 2019 registered under Sections 323, 341, 354(B), 452, 498(A)/34, 506 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Bhagalpur. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the husband of opposite party No. 2 and is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. There is general and omnibus allegation of assault against the petitioner.
Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48538 of 2019(6) dt.04-02-2020 2/2 opposed the prayer of the petitioner by contending that petitioner is the husband of the informant. In the F.I.R., there is direct allegation of assault against the petitioner by means of lathi, and thereafter on the order of the petitioner the co-accused persons started sprinking kerosene oil on the informant. It is further submitted that, on perusal of the mediator's report, it appears that in spite of best and sincere efforts the matter could not be resolved, as detailed in Flag- 'M'. As such this case is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of the allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner is rejected.
(Arvind Srivastava, J) K.K.RAO/- U T