Ramchandra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64568 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2021 Thana- HULASGANJ District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.

RAMCHANDRA YADAV Son of Late Ayodhaya Yadav Resident of Village - Baigani, P.S. - Hulasganj, District - Jehanabad. 2.

Chandradeo Yadav Son of Late Ayodhya Yadav Resident of Village - Baigani, P.S. - Hulasganj, District - Jehanabad. 3.

Dharamraj Kumar @ Matalu Kumar Son of Chandradeo Yadav Resident of Village - Baigani, P.S. - Hulasganj, District - Jehanabad. 4.

Dharmdeo Kumar @ Pankaj Kumar Son of Chandradeo Yadav Resident of Village - Baigani, P.S. - Hulasganj, District - Jehanabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Arvind Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 22-03-2022 The application with regard to petitioner nos.1, 2 and 4 has already been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.03.2022.

Heard both sides.

Petitioner no.3, namely, Dharamraj Kumar @ Matalu Kumar apprehends his arrest in Hulasganj P.S. Case No.100 of 2021 registered under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64568 of 2021(3) dt.22-03-2022 2/2 submitted that there is a general and omnibus allegation against the accused persons including the petitioner. The petitioner and the informant are own gotia. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.

Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for bail by contending that the petitioner including other accused persons are alleged to have assaulted five persons including the informant with various arms consequent of which the informant others sustained injuries. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Having considered the facts aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. Harish/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T