Shiv Lal Yadav @ Shivlal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.64171 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2018 Thana- BHAIRAVSHTHAN District- Madhubani ====================================================== Shiv Lal Yadav @ Shiv - lal Yadav S/o Late Jahuri Yadav, resident of VillageOlipur, P.S. Bhairabsthan, District- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manish Kumar No 13, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kumar Virendra Narayan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 12-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bhairabsthan P.S. Case No. 20 of 2018 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 326, 302, and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

The informant claims that there was a land dispute between the deceased as well as her father-in-law as well as brother-in-law but on the alleged date of occurrence a Panchaiyati was going on, on account of the aforesaid land dispute. It further claims that in the aforesaid Panchaiyati, her father-in-law gave order to F.I.R. named accused, who gave

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.64171 of 2018(2) dt.12-12-2018 2/3 several daggers blow to her husband, as a result whereof her husband died in course of treatment. She further claims that the petitioner had also entered into conspiracy of committing the alleged crime.

Submission on behalf of the petitioner is that no specific overt act has been attributed against the petitioner and except the allegation of conspiracy there is nothing against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was previous enmity between the informant and the petitioner and much prior to filing of the present case the informant had lodged criminal case against the petitioner but after full-fledged trial petitioner got acquittal in the aforesaid case.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the informant opposes the prayer submitting that there is specific allegation of conspiracy against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail. He also submits that petitioner does have criminal antecedents, which is evident from perusal of paragraph 3 of the petition. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, this anticipatory bail petition is allowed and it is ordered that petitioner, in the event of his

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.64171 of 2018(2) dt.12-12-2018 3/3 arrest/ surrender within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order to the court concerned, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Jhanjharpur (Madhubani) in Bhairabsthan P.S. Case No. 20 of 2018 subject to conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) Spd/- U T