Madhav Yadav @ Madho Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76615 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-161 Year-2019 Thana- GOH District- Aurangabad ====================================================== 1.

MADHAV YADAV @ MADHO YADAV Son of Awadhesh Yadav Resident of Village - Balsar, P.S.- Bandeya, District- Aurangabad (Bihar) 2.

Jai Mangal Yadav @ Mandal Son of Babulal Yadav Resident of Village - Tilan Bigha, P.S.- Goh, District- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate Mr. Kamlendra Pd. Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 06-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

The petitioners in the present case are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Goh P.S. Case No. 161 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a case of false implication of the petitioners as none of the injures found on the body of the informant have been caused by firearm. It is submitted that these petitioners have no criminal antecedent and they have been implicated only because of personal rivalries. The emphasis on the submission that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76615 of 2019(3) dt.06-03-2020 2/2 injuries have not been supported by the medical report. On the other hand, learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. It is submitted that several injuries have been found on the body of the informant and there are witnesses who have stated in course of investigation that these petitioners had indulged in firing upon the informant causing injury to him.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in which this is an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the kind of material present in the case diary suggests that there are allegations of firing against these petitioners and the witnesses have also supported the allegation, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The application stands dismissed.

In case, the petitioners surrender and pray for regular bail before the learned court below within a period of four weeks from today, their prayer for regular bail shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by the present order.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) avin/- U T