Nagina Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17495 of 2015 (02) dt.11-05-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17495 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -259 Year- 2014 Thana -KHIJARSARAI District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Nagendra Yadav @ Naga

2. Munna Yadav .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.19556 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -259 Year- 2014 Thana -KHIJARSARAI District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Nagina Yadav

2. Umesh Yadav .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In Cr.Misc. No.17495 of 2015) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brijeshwar Narayan Singh-Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. R.B.Roy Raman(A.P.P.) (In Cr.Misc. No.19556 of 2015) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha-Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. U.L.Verma(A.P.P.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 11-05-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

Criminal Miscellaneous No.17495 of 2015 wherein Nagendra Yadav @ Naga and Munna Yadav are the petitioners whereas Criminal Miscellaneous No.19556 of 2015 wherein Nagina Yadav and Umesh Yadav are the petitioners commonly originate out of Khizarsarai P. S. Case no.259 of 2014, on account

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17495 of 2015 (02) dt.11-05-2015 thereof, have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

There was road robbery wherein apart from informant, so many persons were victimized. Furthermore, all the petitioners were identified during course of occurrence. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioners that nothing has been recovered from their possession. It has also been submitted that they have been named on account of animosity. It has also been submitted that petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. So, submitted that petitioners are entitled for bail. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer.

For the present, I do not see it a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, prayer of petitioners for bail is rejected. However, in case so advised, petitioners may renew their prayer for bail after examination of informant. (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) Vikash/- U T