Jitendra Rawat v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22000 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -91 Year- 2016 Thana -JAMUI District- JAMUI ====================================================== Jitendra Rawat Son of Fakira Rawat resident of village - Lagma, P.S. & Distt. - Jamui .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narsingh Tanti(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 23-05-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offences punishable under sections 342, 323, 324, 307, 379, 337, 338, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, nine F.I.R. named accused persons including the petitioner came being variously armed, started abusing and on protest, co-accused Bablu Rawat assaulted the informant with sword causing injury to him and other co-accused assaulted others.

Submission is of false implication and that against the petitioner, there is no allegation for committing any overt act, he was only member of the mob, he has not used the sword which

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22000 of 2016 (2) dt.23-05-2016 2/2 allegedly he was having and in this case other co-accused, namely, Moti Rawat and Ravi Rawat have already been allowed bail by the learned Court below itself and the case of the petitioner is on better footing to which the learned A.P.P. does not dispute. In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in connection with Jamui P.S. Case No.91 of 2016, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) N.H./- U T