Patna High CourtCR. MISC./49417/2018dismissed

Bipin Kumar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2018-08-28Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.49417 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -81 Year- 2018 Thana -VAISHALI District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================

1. Bipin Kumar, Son of Yaddu Ram

2. Saroj Kumar, Son of Yaddu Ram

3. Suresh Ram, Son of Yogendra Ram

4. Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Ram, Son of Yogendra Ram,

5. Arun Ram, Son of Asharfi Ram

6. Yogendra Ram, Son of Asharfi Ram, all are resident of VillageBarhadia, Chaknight, Police Station- Vaishali, District- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anita Kumari Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ahtash Ali Khan, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 28-08-2018 Heard the parties. The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Vaishali P.S. Case No.81 of 2018, registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per F.I.R., allegation against the petitioners is of assault to the father of the informant with lathi and danda after dragging him in the field, causing death.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.49417 of 2018 (2) dt.28-08-2018 2/2 and the fatter of the informant died due to fell in well. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail on the ground that as per postmortem report it reveals that there are nine injuries were found on the person of the father of the informant on different parts of the body.

In view of allegation against the petitioners, above named, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected with a direction to the petitioners that if the petitioners surrender before the Court below and makes prayer for regular bail, which will be considered by the learned court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of this Court. With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) Sudha/- U T