Gajadhar Das And ORS. v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6491 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -177 Year- 2015 Thana -JHAJHA District- JAMUI =====================================

1. Gajadhar Das, son of Kesho Das.

2. Balbir Das, son of Gajadhar Das.

3. Shambhu Das, son of Mathura Das.

4. Geno Das, son of Shiv Sahi Sad.

5. Mantu Das, son of Geno Das.

6. Luxman Das, son of Shariar Das.

7. Dharmendra Das, son of Gajadhar Das.

8. Jhagru Das @ Jhabgru Das, son of Mathura Das.

9. Prakash Das, son of Shambhu Das.

10. Sanjay Das @ Sanjay Kumar, son of Shambhu Das.

11. Karu Das, son of Lutan Das.

All are resident of village- Chain Ravidas Tola, P.S.- Jhajha, District- Jamui.

12. Guru Das, son of Doman Das, resident of villageBaliyadih, P.S.- Jhajha, District- Jamui. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ===================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Satyavrat Verma, APP For the Informant : Mr. Hare Krishna Prasad, Adv. ===================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 30-03-2016 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the parties.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Jhajha P.S. Case No.177 of 2015, disclosing offences under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 337, 338 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Arising out of dispute over irrigation of land, it seems that an altercation took place between the side of the informant and the petitioners, leading to institution of case and counter case.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have no criminal antecedent and the allegations against them are general and omnibus. He further submits that no purpose would be served, if the petitioners are taken into custody in a case of this nature.

Learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, has vehementally opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail and has submitted that considering the gravity of the offence, the petitioners are not entitled for the privilege of anticipatory bail.

However, considering the facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus, this application is allowed.

Let the petitioners,

abovenamed, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks, be released on 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 learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Jamui, in connection with Jhajha P.S. Case No.177 of 2015, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

This is subject to the condition that the petitioners, abovenamed, shall present themselves before the police/Court, as the case may be, as and when required and in the event of failure on their part to appear before the Court on two consecutive occasions, their bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled.

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.) Praveen-II/- U T