Umesh Prasad@Umesh Prasad Singh@Umesh Prasad Kushwaha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68466 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2023 Thana- PAKRIDAYAL District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

UMESH PRASAD@UMESH PRASAD SINGH@UMESH PRASAD KUSHWAHA SON OF LATE GILA BHAGAT RESIDENT OF VILLAGEMADHURAPUR, PS- PIPRAKOTHI, DISTT- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI 2.

PRINCE KUMAR SON OF UMESH PRASAD @ UMESH PRASAD SINGH @ UMESH PRASAD KUSHWAHA RESIDENT OF VILLAGEMADHURAPUR, PS- PIPRAKOTHI, DISTT- EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 25-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2.

Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Pakridayal P.S. Case No.123 of 2023, registered for the offence punishable u/s 384/34 of the IPC.

3.

Allegation against the petitioners is that they demanded money from one Jamiruddin Khan and threatened that if the demand is not met his mutation petition would be cancelled. 4.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have not committed any offence. They have been falsely implicated in this case due to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68466 of 2023(3) dt.25-01-2024 2/2 ulterior motive. They have no concern with the Circle Office, Pakridayal and with malafide intention, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner as to who demanded money for mutation. Petitioners have no criminal antecedent. 5.

Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for bail by submitting that there is specific allegation against the petitioners and there is ample evidence against them in the case diary. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail on their behalf is hereby rejected.

7.

This application is accordingly dismissed.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U T