Md. Rahmat And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.35083 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -88 Year- 2017 Thana -SINGHIYA District- SAMASTIPUR ======================================================
1. Md. Rahmat Son of Md. Wali @ Md. Oli
2. Md. Ajmat Son of Md. Wali @ Md. Oli Both residents of Village - Sonma, P.S. - Singhiya, District - Samastipur (Bihar). .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 14-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
Petitioners are languishing in judicial custody since 05.06.2017 in connection with Singhiya P.S. Case No. 88 of 2017 for offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 307, 323, 427, 379, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that while he, his father Md. Phool Hasan and brother Md. Zahoor Hasan along with cousin brother was returning home after ploughing his eight katha land the petitioners along with four other accused persons armed with Farsa assaulted his father, brother and also assaulted the informant and other family members and damaged his motorcycle.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35083 of 2017 (3) dt.14-09-2017 2/3 It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they are innocent, bear no criminal history and because of land dispute the said occurrence is alleged to have taken place. He submits that injury found on the father and brother of the informant has been assessed as simple in nature except injury no. 6 on the informant's father which is on the shoulder and not on the vital part of the body for which opinion has been reserved. He submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no allegation of tampering of the prosecution witnesses by the petitioners.
However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, let petitioners, above named, 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vth Rosera, Samastipur in connection with Singhiya P.S. Case No. 88 of 2017, subject to the condition that one of the bailors would be a close relative of the petitioners having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned police station/ court, who will file an affidavit stating his relationship with the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35083 of 2017 (3) dt.14-09-2017 3/3 petitioners and that petitioners will appear before the learned court below during trial as and when required and failure to appear on two consecutive dates without assigning any reason will entail cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Nilu Agrawal, J) Devendra/- U T