Bhagya Narayan Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12937 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-249 Year-2023 Thana- SARAI RANJAN District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.
Bhagya Narayan Rai SON OF LATE RAM PADARATH RAI Resident of Village- HARSINGPUR, WARD NO. 10, PS- SARAIRANJAN, DISTSAMASTIPUR 2.
SUJIT KUMAR RAI @ SUJEET RAY SON OF BHAGYA NARAYAN RAI @ BHAG NARAYAN RAY Resident of Village- HARSINGPUR, WARD NO. 10, PS- SARAIRANJAN, DIST- SAMASTIPUR 3.
AMIT KUMAR RAI @ AMIT KUMAR @ AMIT RAY SON OF BHAGYA NARAYAN RAI @ BHAG NARAYAN RAY Resident of VillageHARSINGPUR, WARD NO. 10, PS- SARAIRANJAN, DISTSAMASTIPUR 4.
RAM DULARI DEVI WIFE OF BHAGYA NARAYAN RAI @ BHAG NARAYAN RAY Resident of Village- HARSINGPUR, WARD NO. 10, PSSARAIRANJAN, DIST- SAMASTIPUR ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Abhay Shanker Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Md. Mushtaque Alam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 14-03-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 354B, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that on 01.09.2023 when she reached her field for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12937 of 2024(2) dt.14-03-2024 2/3 cutting grass for her cattle when petitioners along with other accused persons who were from before objected her from cutting the grass on the ground that the land does not belong to her, on protest it is alleged that petitioner no. 1 gave orders to his son to kill the informant, on which petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are alleged to have disrobed the informant by pulling her saree, further petitioner no. 4 is alleged to have snatched the ornaments from the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that on account of dispute relating to land, the present occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is also submitted that the allegation of disrobing and pulling the saree of the informant and snatching ornaments are general, omnibus and ornamental in nature. It is further submitted that one of the son of petitioner no. 1 namely Ajit Rai is alleged to have assaulted the informant with farsa, but then he is not the petitioner in the present anticipatory bail application.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12937 of 2024(2) dt.14-03-2024 3/3 event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 249 of 2023 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T