← Library
Patna High CourtCR. APP (SJ)/5120/2023dismissed

Madhav Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-11Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5120 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2023 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== 1.

MADHAV RAI SON OF LATE SHIVNATH MAHTO RESIDENT OF PAHARI GACHHI, WARD NO.45, P.S. - MUFASSIL, DISTRICT - BEGUSARAI 2.

BOBI DEVI WIFE OF MADHAV RAI RESIDENT OF PAHARI GACHHI, WARD NO.45, P.S. - MUFASSIL, DISTRICT - BEGUSARAI 3.

DAYVATI DEVI WIFE OF LATE SHAMBHU MAHTO RESIDENT OF PAHARI GACHHI, WARD NO.45, P.S. - MUFASSIL, DISTRICT - BEGUSARAI 4.

RAJEEV RAI @ RAJEEV KUMAR SON OF LATE SHAMBHU MAHTO RESIDENT OF PAHARI GACHHI, WARD NO.45, P.S. - MUFASSIL, DISTRICT - BEGUSARAI 5.

SUMAN DEVI @ SUMAN KUMARI WIFE OF RAJEEV RAI @ RAJEEV KUMAR RESIDENT OF PAHARI GACHHI, WARD NO.45, P.S. - MUFASSIL, DISTRICT - BEGUSARAI ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

NUNULAL DAS SON OF LATE RAMSEVAL DAS RESIDENT OF PAHARI GACHHI, WARD NO.45, P.S. - MUFASSIL, DISTRICT - BEGUSARAI ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Md Fazle Karim , Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sadanand Paswan, SPP For the Informant :

Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam , Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal has been filed for setting aside order dated 19.09.2023 , passed in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 448 , 341, 323, 307, 379, 325 504 and and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(i) (b) (c) /(r)(s)

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5120 of 2023(2) dt.11-07-2024 2/2 (v)/ (2)(v)(a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereby the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant has been rejected. 3 . At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that proceeding under Section 82 of Cr. PC has already been initiated against these appellants.

4. Considering the fact that proceeding under Section 82 of Cr. PC has already been initiated against these appellants , this appeal for pre-arrest bail of the appellants is hereby dismissed.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Koushik/- U T