Patna High CourtCR. MISC./31985/2016dismissed

Raghvendra Kumar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2016-08-30Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.31985 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -36 Year- 2016 Thana -PIPRAHI District- SHEOHAR ======================================================

1. Raghvendra Kumar, son of Snehi Rai

2. Budhiya Devi, wife of Snehi Rai

3. Rambha Devi, wife of Birendra Rai All are residents of Village - Shankarpur Bidhi, P.S. - Piprahi, District - Sheohar.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Hans Lal Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Abhay Kumar Roy ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-08-2016 Heard Sri Alok Kumar, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Hans Lal Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Abhay Kumar Roy, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Three petitioners, apprehending their arrest in Piprahi P.S. Case No.36/2016 registered for the offence under Section 307 and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code, have prayed for grant of bail in the event of their arrest. It was argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that as per F.I.R. there is specific accusation against one Sanehi Ray. It was alleged that Sanehi Ray had inflicted spear blow in the abdomen of the informant. He submits that save and except the allegation that the petitioners along with others had arrived at the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.31985 of 2016 (2) dt.30-08-2016 2/2 alleged place of occurrence, there is no other allegation against them. It was submitted that prior to lodging of the present case, a complaint case was filed in the year 2013 from the petitioners side.

Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. On going through the F.I.R. the Court is satisfied that it is not a fit case for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U T