Dilip Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21921 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2020 Thana- SONO District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.
Dilip Yadav Son Of Budhan Yadav Resident Of Village- Kasroti, P.S.- Sono, And District- Jamui 2.
Pankaj Yadav Son Of Late Sokhi Yadav Resident Of Village- Kasroti, P.S.- Sono, And District- Jamui 3.
Pintu Yadav Son Of Late Sokhi Yadav Resident Of Village- Kasroti, P.S.- Sono, And District- Jamui 4.
Shyamdev Yadav Son Of Tulsi Yadav Resident Of Village- Kasroti, P.S.- Sono, And District- Jamui 5.
Sunil Yadav Son Of Parmeshwar Yadav Resident Of Village- Kasroti, P.S.- Sono, And District- Jamui 6.
Shiv Kumar Yadav Son Of Kaleshwar Yadav Resident Of Village- Kasroti, P.S.- Sono, And District- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners :
Mr.Aryan Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party :
Mr.Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Sono P.S. Case No.156 of 2020 registered for offences under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 324, 308, 379, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is case and counter case and due to that, both the parties fought in which petitioner no.1 sustained grievous injury whereas five persons of the informant have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21921 of 2021(4) dt.18-01-2022 2/2 sustained injuries and out of them, two persons have received grievous injuries. He also submitted that petitioner no.5 is not said to have assaulted anyone and there is no specific allegation of assault against petitioner no.1.
Considering the submissions of both the parties, the application for anticipatory bail on behalf of petitioner nos.1 and 5, namely, Dilip Yadav and Sunil Yadav is allowed. Accordingly, let petitioner nos.1 and 5, namely, Dilip Yadav and Sunil Yadav, in the event of their arrest or surrender within ten weeks from today, 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 Smt. Bharti Kumari, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamui in connection with Sono P.S. Case No.156 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. So far as petitioner nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6, namely, Pankaj Yadav, Pintu Yadav, Shyamdev Yadav and Shiv Kumar Yadav, are concerned, their prayer for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected because they have assaulted five persons. Therefore, the application for anticipation bail is dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) BT/- U T