Bibhuti Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.59396 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2018 Thana- SALAKHUA District- Saharsa ======================================================

1. Bibhuti Yadav,

2. Vidur Yadav Both Sons of Dinesh Yadav, R/o Vill.- Gordah, P.S.- Salkhua, District- Saharsa.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raja Surendra Mohan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Ashlam Ansari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 08-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Salkhua P.S. Case No. 85 of 2018 registered for offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

In this case, an allegation has been made that the accused persons, mentioned in the First Information Report, with common intention, armed with weapon, started to measure the land of the Informant, when the same was objected by the Informant as to why the measurement is being done of the land, on the order of accused Pannalal yadav, accused Vinod Yadav

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.59396 of 2018(2) dt.08-10-2018 2/2 opened firing which hit in the thigh of the daughter of the Informant, namely, Neka Kumari and became unconscious. Bibhuti Yadav made firing which hit on the head of Kajal Devi, accused Bidur Yadav also opened indiscriminate firing, Girdhari Yadav made firing on Lalo Yadav which hit in the stomach of the calf of Lala Yadav.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the parties are agnates having land dispute and, at the same time, there is no casualty from the side of the Informant. He has further submitted that in the indiscriminate firing, the petitioners side have also received injury.

Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners, above named, is rejected.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) rishi/- U T