Patna High CourtCR. MISC./4782/2024bail rejected

Rajesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-02-20Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4782 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2022 Thana- DARBHANGA SADAR DistrictDarbhanga ====================================================== Rajesh Yadav Son of Late Rajgeer Yadav @ Sajgir Yadav R/o vill - Ranipur, P.S. - Darbhanga Sadar, Distt. - Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Udeshya Kumar Yadav For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pranav Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-02-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Darbhanga Sadar P.s. Case No.67/2022 dated 10.02.2022 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 384, 386, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case because of his antecedent. It is also submitted that in the F.I.R., it is alleged that the petitioner along with other accused persons came and asked the informant not to collect stand charges otherwise he would be killed. Further, when the informant did not accede to the order of the accused persons including the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4782 of 2024(2) dt.20-02-2024 2/2 petitioner, it is alleged that the accused persons again came the the next day and overturned the counter of the informant and took away Rs. 42,000/-. The learned counsel next submits that he has been implicated in the case as he is brother of Lal Bihari.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner carries antecedent of four cases and in the event if he is granted the privilege of anticipatory bail in that event the petitioner will indulge in similar occurrence.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the court is not inclined to entertain the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T