Patna High CourtCR. MISC./76011/2018dismissed

Shailendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2019-03-14Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76011 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-290 Year-2018 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Shailendra Yadav Son of Naresh Yadav, Resident of Village- Jaitiya, P.S.- Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amrendra Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 14-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 34, 323, 324, 326, 307 and 504 Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 290/2018.

It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and the F.I.R. itself relies the accusation. It has been stated in the F.I.R. that the informant inter alia saw the petitioner armed with Gun, but the petitioner is alleged to have assaulted with Khanti. It has been stated that the co-accused Darmendra Yadav was seen armed with Khanti. The informant side had earlier instituted Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 224/2001 in respect of which the petitioner's fathre acquitted after trial in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76011 of 2018(3) dt.14-03-2019 2/2 Sessions Case No. 199/2003/93/2004.

Learned A.P.P. invites reference to the injury report in the case diary which discloses injury no. 3 and 4 to be grievous in nature which have been sustained by the informant on his teeth and between fingers.

Having regard to nature of the allegations and gravity of offences alleged and injury sustained by the informant being grievous in nature, this court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Bail petition stands dismissed.

(Vikash Jain, J) vinita/- U T