Ram Autar Sah @ Ram Autar Sahu v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20929 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2014 Thana- LAUKAHI District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.
Ram Autar Sah @ Ram Autar Sahu Son of Bambholi Sah R/o village - Jhahuri , p.s.- Laukahi , District - Madhubani 2.
Dinesh Sah @ Dinesh Sahu Son of Ramautar Sah R/o village - Jhahuri , p.s.- Laukahi , District - Madhubani 3.
Umesh Sah @ Umesh Sahu Son of Ramautar Sah R/o village - Jhahuri , p.s.- Laukahi , District - Madhubani 4.
Ramudgar sah @ Ramudgar Sahu Son of Late Panchi Sah R/o village - Jhahuri , p.s.- Laukahi , District - Madhubani 5.
Ram Prasad Sah @ Ram Prasad Sahu Son of Late Gouri Sah R/o village - Jhahuri , p.s.- Laukahi , District - Madhubani 6.
Pappu Sah @ Pappu Sahu Son of Ram Prasad Sah R/o village - Jhahuri , p.s.- Laukahi , District - Madhubani 7.
Raj Kumar Sah @ Raj Kumar Sahu Son of Late Mahadeo Sah R/o village - Jhahuri , p.s.- Laukahi , District - Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar bihar 2.
Ramautar Sah son of Mahanthi Sah R/o village - Jhahuri , p.s.- Laukahi , District - Madhubani ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Gagandeo Yadav, Advocate :
Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate :
Mr. Udeshya Kumar Yadav, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 30-04-2025 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Laukahi P.S. Case No. 184 of 2014 for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471, 379, 323, 504 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, lodged on 12.12.2014 by
2/4 the informant, Ram Autar Sah.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that a piece of land belongs to them but the accused persons armed variously claiming it to be their own land got the crop removed and upon objecting to it, they were abused/assaulted. The allegation in the F.I.R. is that they have resorted to fake document to assert their claim on the land. This led to the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the Police had submitted final form but in the year 2018 cognizance was taken since the summon came only in the year 2024, the present anticipatory bail.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail submitting that it is a belated case, cognizance order is of the year 2018 and only because the summons have been issued that cannot be ignored.
6. Taking into account the aforesaid facts as also the fact that the matter related to a land in question on which both the parties are asserting their claim, summons have been issued in the year 2024, the contention is that they shall be diligently appearing in trial, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
3/4 arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jhanjharpur, Madhubani, in connection with Laukahi P.S. Case No. 184 of 2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., as also with the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) 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;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned police station every fortnight for next six months to mark his attendance;
(iv) 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;
4/4 (v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U T