Umakant Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74730 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2017 Thana- PHULPARAS District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.

Umakant Prasad Son Of Sukhdeo Kamat R/V- Suriyahi, P.S.- Phulparas, District- Madhubani 2.

Devkant Prasad Son Of Sukhdeo Kamat R/V- Suriyahi, P.S.- Phulparas, District- Madhubani 3.

Shyam Sunder Kamat Son Of Late Arjun Kamat R/V- Suriyahi, P.S.- Phulparas, District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravi Prakash For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Harendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 04-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 326, 307, 427 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the learned court below.

As per the prosecution case, petitioners along with others co-accused persons are said to have fired and assaulted the informant and others persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74730 of 2022(2) dt.04-02-2023 2/2 case. He further submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. He submits that from persual of the FIR it appears that due to land dispute present FIR has been lodged against the petitioners. He further submits that similarly situated other co-accused persons have already been granted bail by different Coordinate Benches of this Court. He further submits that petitioners have got three criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail application. Learned APP for the State opposes for prayer for bail and submits that injuries found upon the victim are grievous in nature, hence they do not deserve anticipatory bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in connection with Phulparas P.S. Case No.111/2017, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, their prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) ajay/- U T