← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./19752/2017rejected

Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-07-06Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.19752 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -164 Year- 2016 Thana -SONO District- JAMUI ====================================================== Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Yadav s/o Dhobi Yadav resident of village Panbharwa, P.S. Khiara, Distt - Jamui.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 06-07-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Sono (Charkapathar) P.S. Case No. 164/2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act and under different sections of U.A.P. Act.

Deo Nandan Yadav the informant alleged that the petitioner and other accused persons had taken Kunal Yadav his brother-in-law, but Kunal Yadav did not return. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that name of the petitioner figured in the case on mere suspicion. The petitioner is at best last seen person with the deceased, but nobody has seen the occurrence.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19752 of 2017 (2) dt.06-07-2017 2/2 Learned counsel for the informant as well as learned A.P.P. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted that anticipatory bail of similarly situated coaccused Arun Yadav @ Arun Ranjan has already been rejected vide order dated 21.02.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. 2210/2017. It appears that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and the informant and other witnesses have stated that the petitioner and others took the deceased and thereafter, the dead-body was found.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T