Guddu Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72741 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-540 Year-2018 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

GUDDU PRASAD S/o Sri Sumiran Ray Ward Member of Ward No. 17, R/o Village- Manas @ Mahesh Naya Panapur, P.S.- Akilpur, District- Patna. 2.

Sri Ram Singh @ Ram Ray @ Sri Ram Singh Ray S/o Late Ram Dayal Ray Ward Member of Ward No. 4, R/o Village- Manas @ Mahesh Naya Panapur, P.S.- Akilpur, District- Patna.

3.

Prabhat Kumar Ray S/o Sri Dashrath Yadav Ward Member of Ward No. 1, R/o Village- Manas @ Mahesh Naya Panapur, P.S.- Akilpur, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binod Murari Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anant Kumar 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 18-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioners are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Danapur P.S. Case No. 540 of 2018 registered under Sections 143, 149, 504, 427, 332, 337, 308, 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M. - 1, Danapur, District - Patna.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners for damaging the property of the office of the B.D.O., they were not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72741 of 2019(2) dt.18-12-2019 2/2 present on spot, however petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the B.D.O. of the Block Office has specifically named these petitioners as the persons who entered in his office and indulged in damaging the office and were shouting slogans and abusing him as also indulged in creating hindrance in discharge of duties to the employee of the Block Office, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to these petitioners.

Prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is refused.

In case, petitioners surrender and pray for regular bail in the court below within a period of four weeks from today, their prayer for regular bail shall be considered on their own merit without being prejudiced by the order of this court. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/- U T