← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./19613/2016dismissed

Shambhu Sah And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2016-05-19Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19613 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -55 Year- 2015 Thana -CHAURADANO DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Shambhu Sah S/o Rameshwar Sah

2. Mithilesh Mahto S/o Yogi Mahto

3. Nanhak Sah @ Surender Sah S/o Shambhu Sah

4. Sikindra Sah @ Salik Sah S/o Shambhu Sah All of village. - Raghunathpur, P.S. Chhauradano, Distt. - East Champaran .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sangeet Deokuliar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan (Spl.Pp) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-05-2016 Heard Sri Sangeet Deokuliar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sadanand Paswan, learned Special Public Prosecutor.

Four petitioners, apprehending their arrest in connection with Chhauradano P.S.Case no.55 of 2015, G.R. No.284 of 2015 registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 504, 506, 313/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x)(xi)(xv) of the Schedule Castes & Schedule Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19613 of 2016 (2) dt.19-05-2016 2/2 petitioners, by way of referring to statement made in paragraph-6 of the petition, submits that the informant is by caste Kanu and is not member of either Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe and, as such, there is no question of applicability of SC/ST Act. He further submits that for some trivial rivalry in between the parties, occurrence had taken place.

Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposing the prayer of the petitioner submits that there is specific allegation in the F.I.R. against the petitioners.

Be that as it may, I do not find any ground for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail. The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U