Ram Prakash Sahni @ Prakash Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63730 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2015 Thana- SINDHWARA District- Darbhanga ====================================================== 1.

RAM PRAKASH SAHNI @ PRAKASH SAHNI Son of Late Laxmi Sahni @ Laxmi Sahni Resident of Village-Man Ikauli, P.S-Singhwara, DistrictDarbhanga. 2.

Chandar @ Chandra Sahni @ Chander Sahni Son of Late Laxmi Sahni @ Laxmi Sahni Resident of Village-Man Ikauli, P.S-Singhwara, DistrictDarbhanga. 3.

Awadesh Sahni @ Awadhesh Sahni Son of Late Laxmi Sahni @ Laxmi Sahni Resident of Village-Man Ikauli, P.S-Singhwara, District-Darbhanga. 4.

Shiv Prakash Sahni @ Shiv Prasad Sahni Son of Lakshmi Sahni Resident of Village-Man Ikauli, P.S-Singhwara, District-Darbhanga. 5.

Vijay Sahni @ Vijay Sane Son of Bilas Sahni @ Rambilas Sahni Resident of Village-Man Ikauli, P.S-Singhwara, District-Darbhanga. 6.

Rajiv Sahni @ Rajeev Sahni Son of Chandra Sahni @ Chandar Sahni Resident of Village-Man Ikauli, P.S-Singhwara, District-Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vinay Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Md. Anbzarul Haque Sahara ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 23-10-2019 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, 447, 323, 341, 308 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, registered in connection with Singhwara P.S.Case No. 74 of 2015.

3. At the outset, learned APP submits that the FIR has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63730 of 2019(2) dt.23-10-2019 2/2 been filed as far back as in the year 2015, but the petitioners have approached this Court in the year 2019 and there does not appear to be any immediate apprehension of arrest of the petitioners.

4. Considering that the petitioners have not shown any immediate apprehension of arrest and the anticipatory bail petition has been filed more than four years after filing of the FIR, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Bail petition stands dismissed.

5. If the petitioners surrender and seek regular bail before the learned court below, the same shall be considered on its own merit in accordance with law and without being prejudiced by any observation in the present order. (Vikash Jain, J) HR/- U T