Patna High CourtCR. MISC./7558/2017rejected

Binod Sahani @ Vinod Sahani And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2017-03-23Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.7558 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -77 Year- 2015 Thana -PURAINI District- MADHEPURA ======================================================

1. BINOD SAHANI @ VINOD SAHANI Son of Devi Sahani

2. Bambam Sahani Son of Ram Phal Sahani Both residents of Village - Puraini, P.S. Puraini, District Madhepura.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Renuka Ratnakar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 23-03-2017 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 Binod Sahani has already been arrested and accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no. 1 is dismissed as has become infructuous.

Heard both sides.

The petitioner no. 2 Bambam Sahani apprehends his arrest in Puraini P.S. Case No. 77/2015, registered for the offences punishable under Section 307 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is omnibus and general allegation against the petitioner and others. Phulia Devi lodged Puraini P.S. Case No. 79/15 and this fact was

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7558 of 2017 (4) dt.23-03-2017 2/2 not brought to the notice of this court at the time of hearing Cr. Misc. 43229/2016 by which the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners was earlier rejected. The Supervising Authority also did not find the case true under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners, but from perusal of the record, I find that the petitioners actively participated in the crime and 05 police personnel sustained injury at the hands of the petitioners and others. Prayer for bail of the petitioners was earlier rejected after considering all the facts.

Therefore, I find no fresh ground to reconsider the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner no. 2 Bambam Sahani, Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T