Yogendra Mahto v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.22685 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -134 Year- 2017 Thana -PURNEA SADAR District- PURNIA ======================================================
1. Yogendra Mahto son of Late Bangali Mahto Resident of village - Majhawan, P.S. Purnea Sadar, District - Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.22429 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -134 Year- 2017 Thana -PURNEA SADAR District- PURNIA ======================================================
1. Runa Devi, wife of Late Ram Bilash Mahto, resident of Village- Majhua, P.S.- Muffassil, Ranipatra, District- Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In Cr.Misc. No.22685 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pratyush For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Arif For the Informant : Mr Rajesh Kumar (In Cr.Misc. No.22429 of 2017) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Amrendra Prasad For the informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mr. Raj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 07-07-2017 Since both the above cases arise out of the same police station case no., for the sake of convenience, they are clubbed together and are being decided by this common order. The petitioners in both the above mentioned cases seek
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22685 of 2017 (3) dt.07-07-2017 2/3 regular bail in connection with Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 134 of 2017, registered for offences punishable under Section 370, 364, 302, 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that their names have been dragged in the present case only on the basis of suspicion and except that there is nothing against them so as to show their involvement in the present case. Further they are in custody since 17.03.2017.
Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that there was land dispute between the parties and earlier the petitioner Runa Devi had threatened the informant and also Ari recovered in this case has been identified as that belonged to Runa Devi.
Having heard both sides, in view of the fact as stated above, let the petitioners of both the above mentioned cases, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000 (Rs. Twenty Five) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Purnea, in connection with Sadar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 134 of 2017, subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22685 of 2017 (3) dt.07-07-2017 3/3 a local person having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court.
(ii) The petitioners will not induce any witness or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) The petitioners shall cooperate in the disposal of trial and make themselves available as and when required by the court and on the event of failure on their part to appear before the court below on two consecutive dates without showing any genuine reasons, the prosecution will be free to move for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T