Fulchand Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64974 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-90 Year-2016 Thana- BIHRA District- Saharsa ====================================================== 1.

FULCHAND YADAV S/O LATE BHUMI YADAV R/o village- Bishanpur, P.S.- Bihra, Distt.- Saharsa 2.

Bhupen Yadav @ Bhupendra Yadav S/o Late Bhumi Yadav R/o villageBishanpur, P.S.- Bihra, Distt.- Saharsa 3.

Shiv Kumar Yadav S/o Manraj Yadav R/o village- Bishanpur, P.S.- Bihra, Distt.- Saharsa 4.

Jaikrishna Yadav S/o Manraj Yadav R/o village- Bishanpur, P.S.- Bihra, Distt.- Saharsa ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar Sinha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-07-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Shailendra Kumar, learned APP for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Bihra P.S. Case No. 90 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 308, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, when the informant was repairing his house, all the four petitioners came there and they demanded the expenses of litigation. When the informant told that the decree of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64974 of 2021(2) dt.20-07-2022 2/2 civil suit is in his favour, they badly assaulted the informant and his family members.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is case and counter case. There is land dispute between the parties.

The learned Addl.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. Two injured persons namely Kirtan Yadav and Aruna Devi have sustained grievous injuries and there is allegation against the petitioners that they had assaulted them. As such, the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioners within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) SONALI/- U T