Mukesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61265 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2019 Thana- TAJPUR DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== 1.

MUKESH YADAV Son of Mohit Ray @ Mohit Rai Resident of Village - Kauwaa, P.S.- Tajpur (Halai), Distt - Samastipur. 2.

Ganesh Rai Son of Ramprit Rai Resident of Village - Kauwaa, P.S.- Tajpur (Halai), Distt - Samastipur.

3.

Pappu Rai Son of Upendra Rai Resident of Village - Kauwaa, P.S.- Tajpur (Halai), Distt - Samastipur.

4.

Ramadhar Rai Son of Late Parikshan Rai Resident of Village - Kauwaa, P.S.- Tajpur (Halai), Distt - Samastipur.

5.

Rambabu Rai Son of Jailal Rai Resident of Village - Kauwaa, P.S.- Tajpur (Halai), Distt - Samastipur.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar, Advocate.

For the State :

Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP For the Informant : Mr. Dhananjee Kumar Singh, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 14-10-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 304, 379, 354A, 447, 448, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Tajpur (Halai) P.S. Case No. 89 of 2019.

3. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and the thrust of accusation of assault with rod on the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61265 of 2019(2) dt.14-10-2019 2/2 informant's head is attributed to co-accused Upendra Rai. The petitioner no. 1 is said to have caught hold of the informant and the accusation of assault with lathi against the petitioners is general and omnibus in nature.

4. Learned APP assisted by learned counsel for the informant refers to the injury report of the informant which discloses grievous injury on her left foot and back of the informant.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and the gravity of the offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The petition stands dismissed.

6. If the petitioner surrenders and seeks regular bail before the learned Court below the same shall be considered on its own merit in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by any observation in the present order.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- U T