Bablu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69844 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-169 Year-2019 Thana- BIKRAM District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Bablu Yadav, Male, aged about 26 years.

2.

Ajit Kumar @ Ajit Yadav, Male, aged about 24 years, Both are son of Suresh Yadav Resident of Village-Nagahar Tola, P.S-Bikram, District-Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. D K Tiwary, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 16-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Bikram PS Case No. 169 of 2019 dated 08.06.2019 instituted under Sections 341, 323, 307 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioners is of assault on her, her brother-in-law and her son.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegation is general and omnibus against three persons and the injuries found are simple in nature. It was further submitted that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69844 of 2019 dt.16-03-2020 2/2 there was a case and a counter case and the petitioners side has also suffered injury. Learned counsel submitted that the parties are agnates and there is land dispute between them. Learned counsel further submitted that another co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail. However, he was not in a position to give details thereof.

5. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that with regard to injury on one of the persons, there is fracture in the skull, which is grievous. It was further submitted that multiple injuries having been found on the person of the injured, the petitioners cannot take advantage of non specific details with regard to whose blow hit the victims. It was submitted that the petitioners were equally responsible for the incident and the injuries inflicted on the victims.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U T