← Library
Patna High CourtCR. APP (SJ)/3266/2019dismissed

Ram Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2020-02-25Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.3266 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-706 Year-2017 Thana- NAWADAH COMPLAINT CASE District- Nawada ====================================================== 1.

RAM PRASAD YADAV, Son of Late Bandhu Yadav 2.

Kailash Yadav, Son of Ram Prasad Yadav 3.

Sunil Yadav, Son of Ram Prasad Yadav 4.

Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Yadav, Son of Ram Prasad Yadav, All are Residents of Village - Sarauni, P.S. - Kowakole, District - Nawada ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Savitri Devi, wife of Late Nanhaku Chaudhari, Resident of Village - Sarauni, P.S. - Kouakol, District - Nawada.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 25-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 01.06.2019 in A.B.P. No. 664 of 2019 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge, Nawada in connection with Complaint Case No. 706 of 2017 registered under Sections 340, 323, 437, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(i)(r) of the SC/ST Act.

The complaint based allegation, prima facie, discloses

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3266 of 2019(6) dt.25-02-2020 2/2 accusation of commission of offence, under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by the appellants. The claim of the appellants of land dispute is not substantiated by any document. Hence, I am not inclined to enlarge the appellants on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this appeal against refusal of the prayer for anticipatory bail is dismissed.

However, in the event of surrender of the appellants, prayer for regular bail shall be considered without being prejudiced by this order.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Kundan/- U T