Sandeep Sahani And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8275 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-710 Year-2016 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East Champaran ======================================================

1. Sandeep Sahani Son of Jagdish Sahani,

2. Jagdish Sahani Son of Late Babulal Sahani, Both Resident of Village-Jaisinghpur Tola Gorhaghat, P.S.- Turkauliya, DistrictEast Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Ahtash Ali Khan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 09-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in Town P.S. case no. 710 of 2016 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 386, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

There is allegation in the written report that the informant received a call on his mobile demanding payment of a ransom money of Rs. 5,00,000/- and caller also abused the informant. The informant has given the mobile number from which he has received the call. It is further alleged that informant has land dispute with these petitioners and earlier on 30.10.2016 petitioner no.1 had damaged the plant of sagwan and Mahogani

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8275 of 2018(4) dt.09-04-2018 2/2 by his tractor planted in 04 kathas land of the informant for which the informant had filed a case at Turkauliya P.S. The informant has alleged that due to such dispute the petitioners have committed the aforesaid incident. It is also mentioned in the written report that the informant is a retired government servant and these petitioners have land dispute with him. The case diary has been received. The learned APP has submitted that the petitioners have three cases pending against them but in para 3 of the bail petition it is mentioned that petitioners have no criminal antecedents. In such circumstances, this Court finds that there is concealment of the fact in para 3 of the bail petition. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners stands rejected.

Petitioners may surrender before the Court below and make prayer for regular bail which shall be considered and disposed of on its own merit in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the present order.

(Sanjay Priya, J) shyambihari/- U T