Yashwant Kumar And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 39296 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -143 Year- 2016 Thana -SHEIKHPURA District- SHEIKHPURA ======================================================

1. Yashwant Kumar

2. Chintu Kumar Both are Sons of Sri Yadav, Resident of Village- Mahadev Nagar, P.S.+ District- Sheikhpura.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.C.Verma, Sr.Adv. Mr. Anuj Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4.

06-12-2016 Heard Sri Y.C. Verma, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Anuj Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Ashok Kumar, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Two petitioners have approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 143 of 2016 registered for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 353, 427 and 435 of the Indian Penal Code.

It was submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have falsely been implicated, due to the reason that petitioner no. 1 was agitating against illegal transfer of a land of a Math and he has also initiated a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. By way of referring to Annexure - 2 to the present petition, it has been argued that the petitioner no. 1 was one of the signatory to a complaint filed before the Superintendent

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.39296 of 2016 (4) dt.06-12-2016 2/2 of Police, Sheikhpura as well as the concerned District Magistrate regarding the illegal transfer of the land in question. He has also argued that petitioners have not been identified by the informant, who is Block Development Officer, rather they were got identified by his bodyguard. According to learned senior counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have been implicated, as per instance of the said Mahanth.

However, after going through the material on record, particularly paragraph - 3 of the petition, it is evident that petitioners are accused in other cases also. Considering the conduct of the petitioners, there is no question for granting anticipatory bail.

The petition stands dismissed.

It goes without saying that if within a period of six weeks from today, the petitioners appear before the court below and make a prayer for regular bail, the learned court below, without being prejudiced with this order, may examine the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, preferably on the same date.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U T