Naresh Yadav @ Naro Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54200 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -38 Year- 2017 Thana -CHEWRA District- SEKHPURA ======================================================

1. Naresh Yadav @ Naro Yadav, Son of Kamal Yadav.

2. Bipin Yadav @ Bipin Kumar, Son of Indu Yadav. Both resident of Village- Ekrawan, P.S.- Chewara District- Sheikhpura. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER ------------- 15-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehends their arrest in connection with Chewara P.S. Case No.38 of 2017 registered under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307, 380 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura.

The accusation is that due to money dispute in between the informant Jogi Yadav and Naro Yadav (petitioner no.1), Naro Yadav (petitioner no.1) gave threatening to the informant to tied his buffalo forcibly, due to that reason, both the petitioners started to abuse to the informant and caused fracture injury at the left

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54200 of 2017 (2) dt.15-11-2017 2/2 hand of the informant and also caused injury to the wife of the informant.

It appears from the order dated 05.10.2017 passed in A.B.P. No.468 of 2017 by the court of the Sessions Judge, Sheikhpura, whereby the prayer of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail has been rejected, that four injuries were found on the person of the informant, out of which one injury is grievous in nature whereas two injuries were found on the person of the wife of the informant, out of which one injury is grievous in nature. The informant and his wife sustained fracture injury. Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation against the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail stands rejected. However, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the trial court and pray for regular bail, which shall be considered by the trial court in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the order of this Court. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T