Patna High CourtCR. MISC./56365/2022dismissed

Santu Kumar Yadav @ Santu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2023-01-23Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56365 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-339 Year-2019 Thana- LALIT NARAYAN UNIVERSITY District- Darbhanga ====================================================== SANTU KUMAR YADAV @ SANTU YADAV S/O LATE RAM BILASH YADAV RESIDENT OF MOHALLA- NEEM POKHAR, KADIRABAD, P.S.- LNMU, DIST.- DARBHANGA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ratneshwar Prasad, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Chand Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 23-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with LNMU P.S. Case No. 339 of 2019 instituted under Sections 341, 323, 354, 307, 379, 34 of the IPC. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that his father and uncle were going to market to take vegetables, when they were attacked by the accused persons and specific allegation against this petitioner is of assaulting on head of his cousin brother, Ramchandra Yadav as also aunt, Subh Kala Devi. Subsequent allegation is of snatching of golden chain and Rs. 3500/-. Injured persons were taken to Darbhanga, Medical College Hospital, Darbhanga.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56365 of 2022(2) dt.23-01-2023 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is innocent and wrongly been dragged in this case and do not have criminal antecedent.

Learned APP on the other hand submits that the matter is of 2019, charge-sheet stands submitted and as per the learned Sessions Judge order process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has already been issued against the petitioner. Taking into account the submissions put forward by the learned APP, this is not a fit case for extending anticipatory bail, which is accordingly rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/Ajay Singh/- U T