Vikash Singh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60343 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-169 Year-2024 Thana- BUXAR MUFFSIL District- Buxar ====================================================== Vikash Singh Yadav Son Of Ranvijay Singh Yadav @ Ranvijay Prasad Singh Village- Laheri, P.S.- Dinara, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Shankar Pathak, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Buxar (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 169 of 2024 registered under Sections 341, 323, 448, 452, 354, 354(D) and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, on the alleged date and time of occurrence, informant along with her mother and sister was sleeping on the roof of the house in the meantime at about 3 am, petitioner climbed on roof and tried to force himself on informant, her mother and her sister and when they objected, petitioner put country-made pistol on the head of informant and tried to take her away and when informant's sister raised alarm, he pushed informant from the roof due to which, informant sustained

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60343 of 2024(4) dt.08-01-2025 2/2 grievous injury.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. As a matter of fact, when petitioner demanded his deposited money, this false and fabricated case has been lodged. Petitioner has got clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail by contending that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he pushed informant from the roof due to which, her ankle got fractured. The injury report also corroborates the same. Hence, he does not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

6. Having considered the nature of the accusation and nature of injury, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) utkarsh/- U T