Ratan Yadav @ Ratan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77381 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-121 Year-2022 Thana- LAKHISARAI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== 1.

Ratan Yadav @ Ratan Kumar S/o- Vakil Yadav Resident of Village- Nista, P.S- Suryagarha, Dist- Lakhisarai 2.

Panchanand Yadav @ Panchanand Kumar @ Pandav Yadav @ Pandav Son of Late Suresh Yadav Resident of Village- Nista, P.S- Suryagarha, DistLakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioners :

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

Mr. Dashrath Mehta, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 279, 353, 307, 427, 337, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the FIR lodged by Police Sub Inspector of Lakhisarai Police Station, on 10.02.2023 at about 10.00 PM, Mining Officer was checking challan of overloaded vehicles of sand and stone chips at Jamui More, Lakhisarai and while doing so, one constable had climbed over Tipper (dumper truck) for checking the challan. In the meantime, driver of said Tipper took away said constable along with his truck. It is further alleged that informant along with police personnel tried to chase the accused persons. Meanwhile, when they reached at Nista. 10-15 miscreants including these petitioners, armed with lathi, danda, bricks and stone, assembled there and attacked and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77381 of 2024(3) dt.30-04-2025 2/2 damaged the vehicle of Mining Officer.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not present on the spot and they are innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to old enmity.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that the petitioners are named in the FIR with specific allegation that they attacked the police party and mining officials while they were discharging official duty. Petitioner no.1 has got one criminal antecedent and petitioner no.2 has got two criminal antecedent.

6. Since, petitioners are alleged to have involved in attack on police party and mining officer while they were discharging official duty coupled with the fact that both the petitioners have got criminal antecedents, their prayer for bail is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T