Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26129 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-357 Year-2023 Thana- PARAIYA District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.
Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Yadav son of Rajaram @ Rajaram Yadav Resident of Village- Pipra, Police Station- Paraiya, Dist.- Gaya 2.
Akhilesh Yadav @ Aklesh Yadav Son of Rajaram @ Rajaram Yadav Resident of Village- Pipra, Police Station- Paraiya, Dist.- Gaya 3.
Urmial Devi Wife of Rajaram @ Rajaram Yadav Resident of Village- Pipra, Police Station- Paraiya, Dist.- Gaya 4.
Saheli Devi Wife of Akhilesh Yadav @ Aklesh Yadav Resident of VillagePipra, Police Station- Paraiya, Dist.- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-05-2024 Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Paraiya P.S. Case No. 357 of 2023, F.I.R. dated 02.11.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 307, 354, 379, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Allegation against the petitioners is that they along with other co-accused persons came and started assaulting to the informant with intention to kill and burst the head and oozing blood.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26129 of 2024(2) dt.06-05-2024 2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have clean antecedents and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that there is case and counter case between the parties and although the informants' side have received injury but the injury report of the informants' side suggests that the injury is simple in nature and thereafter both the parties have filed a compromise petition before the learned Court below and both the parties agreed not to pursue the matter in future.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts that the petitioners have clean antecedents and the injury report of the informants' side is simple in nature and also both the parties have filed a compromise petition before the learned Court below, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Gaya in connection with Paraiya P.S. Case No. 357 of 2023, subject to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26129 of 2024(2) dt.06-05-2024 3/3 conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions :-
(1) Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bonds shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(2) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U T