Maharana Pratap Roy @ Maharana Pratap Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34292 of 2017 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2017 Thana- RAJPUR District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

MAHARANA PRATAP ROY @ MAHARANA PRATAP YADAV, S/o Paldhari Rai, 2.

Jitendra Roy @ Jitendra Kumar Roy.

3.

Rakesh Kumar @ Gulshan Kumar, 4.

Raushan Kumar, All three S/o- Upendra Rai, and all are resident of Village- Fajilpur, P.S.- Rajepur, District- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. SRI ASHOK KUMAR ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 30-10-2017 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during the pendency of this application, petitioner nos. 2 and 4 have been arrested.

In view of the above, the application stands dismissed as infructuous as against petitioner nos. 2 and 4. Petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Rajepur P.S. Case No. 3 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that parties are patidar and there is admitted land dispute between them. There is case and counter case. Only due to enmity, the present false

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34292 of 2017(5) dt.30-10-2017 2/2 case has been lodged against these petitioners. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there are allegations against these petitioners supported by the injury report. Considering the nature of allegations levelled, the materials available on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to these petitioner. The same is, therefore, rejected.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) mcv/- U T