Guddu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54509 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -397 Year- 2018 Thana -NARPATGANJ District- ARRARIA ====================================================== Guddu Yadav S/o Manik Yadav @ Manik Chand Yadav, R/o Vill.- Palasi Ward No. 6, P.S.- Narpatganj, District- Araria. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Jagdhar Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 08-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner, in the present case, is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 397 of 2018 registered for offences alleged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 353, 307, 188, 283, 290, 435 and 379/511 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case in question has been registered on the self-statement of the police officer who has falsely implicated this petitioner in the present case. It is submitted that the F.I.R. is against 200 persons out of which 40 persons are named. It is submitted that there is no indication as to the source of the identification. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54509 of 2018 (2) dt.08-10-2018 2/2 the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that this petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R., he is the person who had actively participated in obstructing the police personnel in discharging their official duties and had also indulged in assaulting the police force and attempted to snatch away the arms from possession of the police force. It is also alleged that two Government vehicles were set on fire with the active participation of this petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, where this Court finds that this petitioner is specifically named in the F.I.R. and is said to have actively participated in the alleged occurrence, it would not be just and proper to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to this petitioner. In case the petitioner surrenders in the learned Court below within four weeks from today and prays for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the learned Court below on the basis of the materials available on the record.

This application is dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) R.R.Ojha.

U T