Patna High Court - Orders
Sudhansu Kumar @ Tunnu Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 12 April, 2019
Author: Vinod Kumar Sinha
Bench: Vinod Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77313 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2018 Thana- ARA RAIL P.S. District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Sudhansu Kumar @ Tunnu Yadav Son of Rajendra Yadav Resident of Village-
Banahi,P.S. shahpur,Distt.-Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sri Ashok Kumar Singh 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 12-04-2019Heard the parties.
The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Ara Rail P.S.Case No. 67 of 2018, registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 27, 25 (1-b)a, 26 Arms Act.
Allegation as per F.I.R. is that the informant along with his uncle were coming to catch the train to Ara, the accused persons including the petitioner came with variously armed and started firing, causing injury in the back side of the informant and when the uncle of the informant came to protect the informant, co-accused Tanu Yadav and Radha Mohan Yadav assulted by knife, causing injury on his head and the reason behind the occurrence as per F.I.R. is that in the year Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77313 of 2018(3) dt.12-04-2019 2/3 2017 one Lalan Yadav has lodged a case against the petitioners and they were putting pressure for compromise the case and thus the present case has been lodged.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and from the F.I.R., it appears that the entire prosecution story is false and the nature of injury is simple and the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. In view of the fact, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, and accordingly, prayer of anticipatory bail is rejected with a direction to the petitioner that if the petitioner surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from the date of order and make prayer for regular bail, which will be considered by the learned court below on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order of this Court.
This application is accordingly dismissed.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sudha/-
U T Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77313 of 2018(3) dt.12-04-2019 3/3