Titu Kumar And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.4298 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2017 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE DistrictPatna ======================================================

1. Titu Kumar, son of Sri Vidyadhar Singh

2. Bittu Kumar, son of Sri Vidyadhar Singh

3. Vidyadhar Singh son of Sri Krishna Singh

4. Munna Singh, son of Sri Krishna Singh

5. Nityanand Singh, son of Sri Krishna Singh

6. Sunil Singh, son of Sri Krishna Singh

7. Krishna Singh, son of late Rupa Singh, all residents of village- Ghoswari, P.S.- Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. State Of Bihar

2. Yadunandan Choudhary, son of Sri Shivnandan Choudhary, resident of village- Chakdoulat, P.S.-Bakhtiyarpur, District- Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Kumar Manglam For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sri Sadanand Paswan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 02-01-2019 This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the refusal of prayer of anticipatory bail dated 05.10.2018 passed by 4th Addl. District & Sessions Judge -cumSpl. Judge of SC/ST, Patna in connection with Complaint Case No. 73(C) of 2017 registered under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian penal Code and Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 .

Allegation against the appellants is that they have

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4298 of 2018(2) dt.02-01-2019 2/2 threatened the complainant to withdraw the case earlier lodged by him and also tore his shirts and appellant no. 7 spit and asked to lick the same.

Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that there is dispute between the parties from before and earlier also the complainant has lodged four cases against the appellants and in order to make the case serious, the present case has been lodged.

Heard learned Spl. P.P also who has opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail on the ground that the appellants were threatening the complainant to withdraw the case. Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellants. Let the appellants surrender and make prayer for regular bail, which will be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sujit/- U T