Arjun Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25104 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-382 Year-2020 Thana- CHANDI District- Nalanda ====================================================== 1.

ARJUN DAS Son of Chandreshwar Das Resident of Village- Gopibigha, Chamartoli, Police Station- Chandi, District- Nalanda. 2.

Upendra Das Son of Chandreshwar Das Resident of Village- Gopibigha, Chamartoli, Police Station- Chandi, District- Nalanda. 3.

Arun Das Son of Chandreshwar Das Resident of Village- Gopibigha, Chamartoli, Police Station- Chandi, District- Nalanda. 4.

Pappu Das Son of Chandreshwar Das Resident of Village- Gopibigha, Chamartoli, Police Station- Chandi, District- Nalanda. 5.

Raj Kumar Das Son of Jay Kishun Das Resident of Village- Gopibigha, Chamartoli, Police Station- Chandi, District- Nalanda. 6.

Jagdish Das Son of Jay Kishun Das Resident of Village- Gopibigha, Chamartoli, Police Station- Chandi, District- Nalanda. 7.

Indrajeet Das Son of Kesho Das Resident of Village- Gopibigha, Chamartoli, Police Station- Chandi, District- Nalanda. 8.

Subodh Das Son of Gowardhan Das Resident of Village- Gopibigha, Chamartoli, Police Station- Chandi, District- Nalanda. 9.

Rudal Das Son of Gowardhan Das Resident of Village- Gopibigha, Chamartoli, Police Station- Chandi, District- Nalanda. 10.

Ranjay Das Son of Sonar Das Resident of Village- Gopibigha, Chamartoli, Police Station- Chandi, District- Nalanda.

11.

Jay Kishun Das Son of Late Bhannu Das Resident of Village- Gopibigha, Chamartoli, Police Station- Chandi, District- Nalanda. 12.

Sanjay Das Son of Sonar Das Resident of Village- Gopibigha, Chamartoli, Police Station- Chandi, District- Nalanda.

13.

Shivcharan Das Son of Late Mishri Das Resident of Village- Gopibigha, Chamartoli, Police Station- Chandi, District- Nalanda. 14.

Manohar Das Son of Umesh Das Resident of Village- Gopibigha, Chamartoli, Police Station- Chandi, District- Nalanda. 15.

Geeta Devi Wife of Jagdish Das Resident of Village- Gopibigha, Chamartoli, Police Station- Chandi, District- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raj Krishan Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. APP ======================================================

2/4 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 08-02-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioners is pressing this application only against petitioner nos. 1 and 2. This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is expected to honour his undertaking to remove the defects as pointed out by the office when called upon to do so by the office. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Chandi P.S. Case no. 382 of 2020 instituted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 448, 341, 342, 323, 307, 302, 380, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per allegation in the FIR, while informant was at his home, co-villagers including the petitioner came there armed with deadly weapons like pistol, gun etc. and surrounded his house from all sides and started to abuse and threaten him as why his son frequently visited to police for complain. Nephew of the informant came there for rescue him but on order of co-

3/4 accused Suressh Das, Raj Kumar Das, Jagdish Das and Pappu Das caught hold of his nephew and Satyendra Das shot at his jay by pistol resulting into his death. They also looted away ornaments worth Rs. Three lac and cash.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Specific allegation of firing is against Satyendra Das and not against the petitioner. Only allegation of robbery is against the petitioner but the stolen articles have not been recovered from his house or from his conscious possession. There is case and counter case. Petitioners have got no criminal antecedent.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of Bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner no. 1 and 2 on bail. The petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are directed to surrender in the Court below within a period of four weeks from today and in the event of their arrest or surrender in connection with Chandi P.S. Case no. 382 of 2020, they will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand) with two sureties of the

4/4 like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-1st at Hilsa, Nalanda subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U