Manoj Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.9626 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -569 Year- 2015 Thana -SUPAUL District- SUPAUL ======================================================
1. Manoj Yadav, Son of Najir @ Rajendra Yadav,
2. Mahadeo Yadav, Son of Jagdish Yadav, Both resident of VillageKajha, P.S.- Supaul, Dist- Supaul. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 28-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Supaul P.S. Case No. 569 of 2015, G.R. No. 2185 of 2015 instituted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307, 504 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code.
There is allegation against petitioner No. 1 that he assaulted the informant with lathi on his arm whereas allegation against petitioner No. 2 is that he assaulted Dilip Yadav with Farsa on his head causing cut injury.
Case diary has been received.
The doctor has found injuries on both persons to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.9626 of 2017 (3) dt.28-04-2017 2/2 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is allowed. In the event of surrender/arrest of the petitioners, named above, within six weeks from today, in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 569 of 2015, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr. P.C.
with further conditions (1) bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned, (2) petitioners shall cooperate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason will automatically cancel bail bond of the petitioners and (3) if petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioners. (Sanjay Priya, J) S.