Suba Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58460 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-912 Year-2021 Thana- FATUA District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Suba Yadav, Son of Vaijnath Yadav, Resident of Barki Ranipur, P.s. - Fatuha, Distt. - Patna 2.

Massu Yadav @ Sohit Yadav, Son of Vaijnath Yadav, Resident of Barki Ranipur, P.s. - Fatuha, Distt. - Patna 3.

Kallu Yadav @ Premanand Kumar, Son of Massu Yadav @ Sohit Yadav, Resident of Barki Ranipur, P.s. - Fatuha, Distt. - Patna 4.

Dhodha @ Kalka Kumar, Son of Massu Yadav @ Sohit Yadav, Resident of Barki Ranipur, P.s. - Fatuha, Distt. - Patna 5.

Dasrath @ Dashrath Yadav, Son of Massu Yadav @ Sohit Yadav, Resident of Barki Ranipur, P.s. - Fatuha, Distt. - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Harish Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 13-09-2023 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection with Fatuha P.S. Case No.912/2021 registered on 24.11.2021 for the offenses punishable under Sections 447, 341, 323, 325, 307, 354B, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution, all the accused persons used to abuse and assault the informant after coming to his house. It is alleged that on 24.10.2021, all the accused persons came to the shop of the informant and asked him to pay Rs.5000/- as ransom otherwise remove the shop from there. On being denied

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58460 of 2023(2) dt.13-09-2023 2/2 to pay the said amount, on 25.10.2021, all the accused persons entered into the house of the informant and started searching for the brother of the informant. On non-disclosure by the informant, they all brutally assaulted the informant with an iron rod and lathi due to which he got injured and his legs were alleged to be broken.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegation is omnibus and general. The antecedents of the petitioners are clean and the chargesheet has already been submitted in this case.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the injury report is annexure-3 which suggests the nature of injury is grievous.

6. In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioners in connection with Fatuha P.S. Case No. 912/2021, pending before the learned ACJM, Patna City is hereby rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/- U T