SUMAN KUMAR @ PAPPU YADAV v. The State of Bihar Bihar

Arjun Yadav @ Arjun Prasad Yadav Son of Late Uma Yadav Resident of Village- Mahkar, P.S.- Roh, District- Nawada.

Pitambar Yadav Son of Late Uma Yadav Resident of Village- Mahkar, P.S.- Roh, District- Nawada. Sanjay Yadav Son of Jadish Yadav Resident of Village- Mahkar, P.S.- Roh, District- Nawada. The State of Bihar Bihar Versus ... ... Petitioner/s ... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Mr.Arjun Prasad, Adv. Mr.Satyendra Narayan Singh, Adv. ORAL ORDER 2 05-01-2022 Heard the parties through video conferencing. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Roh P.S. Case No. 124 of 2020 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 448, 504, 506, 341, 323, 307, 269, 354, 380 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all family member of the petitioners have been implicated in the case and similarly situated other six co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application and submits that there are allegation of offence committed under POCSO Act also. Therefore, this Court finds that case of the petitioners could not be Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49136 of 2021(2) dt.05-01-2022 distinguish in that of those who have been granted bail. Taking into consideration, I am inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the above named petitioners and in the event of arrest they shall be released on bail, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. pravinkumar/- U T (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J)