Mishandling and Abuse of Law and Order has a very grave adverse effect on the general atmosphere of the area where such lawlessness prevails: High Court Of Patna
The petitioners were alleged for freeing the accused from police custody by unfair means and false implications. It was an abusive and forcible attempt. The Court after considering all facts and circumstances dismissed the petition for pre-arrest bail. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Birbahadur Singh and others v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10934 of 2020].                      The facts of the case were that the petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection with a case instituted under Sections 341, 323, 353, 224, 225, 307, 504, and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 1st petitioner had surrendered before the court of law and took the bail and he might be got permitted to withdraw the current petition on his behalf. As prayed by the Learned Counsel the petition for petitioner no. 1 stood disposed of as withdrawn and other petitioners were restricted. It was alleged that the petitioners had manhandled the police personnel and freed the accused from custody.  
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the informant, who is the SHO of the Police Station was on inimical terms with the petitioner no. 2, as he had falsely implicated his son previously, showing recovery of mahua liquor from the Kirana shop of the son of the petitioner no. 2. It was submitted that due to this, petitioner no. 2 had filed an informatory petition for apprehending false implication by the present informant, and hence, the present case was instituted. 

It was further submitted by the Additional Public Prosecutor that the witnesses had supported the prosecution case and that the petitioners had forcibly freed the accused. He submitted that the conduct of the petitioners is highhanded as the police who had gone to arrest of another accused were manhandled and abused and the said accused was set free, which has a very grave adverse effect on the the morale of the police and also the general atmosphere of the area where such lawlessness prevails.

The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners no. 2 and 3, namely, Birendra Yadav and Guddu Yadav, respectively.” The petition was hence dismissed on the said terms.”
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the informant, who is the SHO of the Police Station was on inimical terms with the petitioner no. 2, as he had falsely implicated his son previously, showing recovery of mahua liquor from the Kirana shop of the son of the petitioner no. 2. It was submitted that due to this, petitioner no. 2 had filed an informatory petition for apprehending false implication by the present informant, and hence, the present case was instituted.  
It was further submitted by the Additional Public Prosecutor that the witnesses had supported the prosecution case and that the petitioners had forcibly freed the accused. He submitted that the conduct of the petitioners is highhanded as the police who had gone to arrest of another accused were manhandled and abused and the said accused was set free, which has a very grave adverse effect on the the morale of the police and also the general atmosphere of the area where such lawlessness prevails.

The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners no. 2 and 3, namely, Birendra Yadav and Guddu Yadav, respectively.” The petition was hence dismissed on the said terms.”
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 It was further submitted by the Additional Public Prosecutor that the witnesses had supported the prosecution case and that the petitioners had forcibly freed the accused. He submitted that the conduct of the petitioners is highhanded as the police who had gone to arrest of another accused were manhandled and abused and the said accused was set free, which has a very grave adverse effect on the the morale of the police and also the general atmosphere of the area where such lawlessness prevails. 
The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners no. 2 and 3, namely, Birendra Yadav and Guddu Yadav, respectively.” The petition was hence dismissed on the said terms.”
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The Hon’ble High Court Of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners no. 2 and 3, namely, Birendra Yadav and Guddu Yadav, respectively.” The petition was hence dismissed on the said terms.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 109320 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 319 Year 2019 Thana NAWANAGAR District Buxar Birbahadur Singh aged about 20 years Male son of Birendra Yadav. Birendra Yadav aged about 38 years Male son of Late Bihari Yadav. Both are resident of village Kandsar PS NawanagarDistrict 3. Guddu Yadav aged about 20 years Male son of Suresh Singh resident of village Bhadi PS Murar District Buxar The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha APP CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 20 07 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing. 2. Heard Dr. Kamal Deo Sharma learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State 3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Nawanagar PS Case No. 319 of 2019 dated 15.11.2019 instituted under Sections 341 323 353 224 225 307 504 and 506 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no. 1 namely Birbahadur Singh has surrendered before the Court below and taken bail and thus he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition on behalf of him Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.109320 dt.20 07 2021 5. In view thereof as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioners the petition on behalf of petitioner no. 1 namely Birbahadur Singh stands disposed off as withdrawn and is restricted to petitioners no. 2 and 3 namely Birendra Yadav and Guddu Yadav respectively 6. The allegation against the petitioners is that when police had gone to arrest Ashok Yadav and had taken him into custody they had manhandled the police personnel and had freed the said accused 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the informant who is the SHO of the Police Station was on inimical terms with the petitioner no. 2 as he had falsely implicated his son previously showing recovery of mahua liquor from the Kirana shop of the son of the petitioner no. 2. It was submitted that due to this the petitioner no. 2 had filed informatory petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Buxar on 03.07.2019 apprehending false implication by the present informant and thereafter the present case has been instituted 8. Learned APP from the case diary submitted that the petitioners who were known and related to Ashok Yadav whom the police had gone to arrest had forcibly freed him from the custody of the police who were also manhandled and abused. It Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.109320 dt.20 07 2021 was further submitted that witnesses have supported the prosecution case. He submitted that the conduct of the petitioners is highhanded as the police who had gone to make an arrest of another accused were manhandled and abused and the said accused was set free which has a very grave adverse effect on the morale of the police and also the general atmosphere of the area where such lawlessness prevails. Further it was submitted that the filing of the informatory petition itself shows that the same has been done after seizure of liquor from the shop of the son of the petitioner no. 2 only to create pressure on the police in future 9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court is not inclined to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioners no. 2 and 3 namely Birendra Yadav and Guddu Yadav respectively 10. Accordingly the petition stands dismissed (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J