Patna High CourtCR. MISC./53054/2017rejected

Sanjeev Thakur @ Sanjeev Kumar Thakur And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2017-11-14Mr. Justice Arun Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.53054 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -98 Year- 2017 Thana -BASOPATTI District- MADHUBANI ======================================================

1. Sanjeev Thakur @ Sanjeev Kumar Thakur, Son of Sarovar Thakur

2. Sachin Kumar Thakur @ Sachin Thakur, Son of Guddu Thakur

3. Rajiv Thakur, Son of Sarovar Thakur All residents of Village Ijot, P.S. Basopatti, District Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioners :

Mr. Ratanakar Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Chandrasen Prasad Singh, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR ORAL ORDER 14-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Basopatti P.S. Case No.98 of 2017, registered under Sections 341, 323, 354(B), 379 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are five cases lodged earlier by the informant side, there is also proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. in between the parties and title suit relating to land dispute and all petitioners are brothers and it is unlikely that all brothers indulged in outraging the modesty of the informant.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53054 of 2017 (4) dt.14-11-2017 2 /2 However, the allegation appears specific and in para 3 of the statement it is mentioned that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent but the learned counsel for the petitioners himself admits that there are five cases against them, so also a false statement has been given by the person who has sworn affidavit.

Having considered the said facts and circumstances, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners stand rejected in connection with Basopatti P.S. Case No.98 of 2017, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M., Vth, Madhubani.

(Arun Kumar, J.) S.Kumar/- U T