Ranjeet Yadav @ Ranjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13373 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-336 Year-2022 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== RANJEET YADAV @ RANJEET KUMAR S/O MOKHTAR YADAV @ RAM AVTAR YADAV Resident of Village- Bisar, P.S.- Muffasil, DistrictGaya. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sanjay Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Md. Ataur Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 22-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No.336 of 2022 instituted under Sections 147, 341, 323, 307, 337, 338, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 21.05.2022 by the informant Hiraman Yadav.
As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that on 21.05.2022, the accused persons came armed variously and started talking in abusive language. On hulla, the villagers started gathering there but the accused persons tried to forcibly take away the informant with an intention to kill. However, with the intervention of the villagers, the informant could be saved and on failure of taking away to the informant, the accused
2/4 persons started brick batting and left the place after threat the informant and his son to be killed if they step out of the village. The further allegation is that on 09.00 AM, when the informant was going towards his agriculture field, he heard some noise and abusive language then the informant went in that location and saw that his son who was going by his cycle is being assaulted by the said accused persons with lathi, danda, fists and slaps.
The informant started shouted for help and as the villagers arrived, the accused persons fled away. The police was informed whereafter the injured son was taken to the hospital for treatment. His condition was critical and treatment was going at ANMMCH, Gaya. On the basis of written information of the informant, Muffasil P.S case No.336/2022 was registered for the offences u/s 147, 341, 323, 307, 337, 338, 504, 506 IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that omnibus allegation is against the petitioner and further he do not have criminal antecedent. The further submission is that without accepting the allegation and/or the outcome of the present petition in view of the fact that the informant side has alleged injuries, the petitioner on its own would like to contribute towards the medical assistance of Rs. 10,000/- through Demand
3/4 Draft issued by the local State Bank of India branch to be submitted before the 'NAZARAT' of concerned Court to be handed over to the informant after checking the credentials. Learned APP on the other hand opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Taking into account the fact that omnibus allegation is there against the petitioner herein, he do not have criminal antecedent, this Court is inclined to grant him privilege of bail, subject to the fulfillment of undertaking given above. Let the petitioner be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Sub-ordinate court within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No.336 of 2022 to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Gaya, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. with further conditions that:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family member of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner will make himself available to the
4/4 police as and when required in course of investigation; (iii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her bail bond by the Trial court itself;
(iv) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned police station every fortnight for next six months to mark attendance;
(v) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(vi) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) Prakash Narayan / Sunil U T