Harishankar Hajra @ Hari Shankar Paswan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19673 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1015 Year-2023 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
HARISHANKAR HAJRA @ HARI SHANKAR PASWAN Son of Magani Hajra Resident of Village-Beladih, P.S.-Banjariya, District-East Champaran, Motihari.
2.
MUKESH PASWAN Son of Harishankar Hajra @ Harishankar Paswan Resident of Village-Beladih, P.S.-Banjariya, District-East Champaran, Motihari.
3.
ADH DEVI Wie Harishankar Hajra @ Hari Shankar Paswan Resident of Village-Beladih, P.S.-Banjariya, District-East Champaran, Motihari. 4.
LALMUNI DEVI Wife of Suresh hajra Resident of Village-Beladih, P.S.- Banjariya, District-East Champaran, Motihari. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Rajesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam Mrs.Rashmi Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02-04-2024 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 offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 354, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, petitioner no. 1 (Harishankar Hajra) assaulted with Farsa on the head of informant, whereas petitioner no. 2 (Mukesh Paswan) assaulted with iron rod on both arm & back of the informant. Petitioner no. 3 (Adh Devi) is order-giver and there is no allegation of assault against petitioner no. 4 (Lalmuni Devi).
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19673 of 2024(2) dt.02-04-2024 2/2
4. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that both parties are co-villagers and due to land dispute, a scuffle took place. It is further submitted that F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of eight days without there being any plausible explanation of delay. Petitioners claim clean antecedent.
5. However, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail petition.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran in connection with Turkauliya (Banjariya) P.S. Case No. 1015 of 2023, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T