Patna High CourtCR. MISC./70996/2018partly allowed disposal

Ram Prasad Yadav @ Ram Prasad Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2018-12-17Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.70996 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-513 Year-2017 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ======================================================

1. Ram Prasad Yadav @ Ram Prasad Singh Son of Late Dudheshwar Yadav

2. Pappu Kumar, Son of Ram Prasad Yadav @ Ram Prasad Singh Both are Resident of Village-Bajitpur, Police Station-Jehanabad in the District of Jehanabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Smt. Anita Kumari Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 17-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Jehanabad (Karauna) P. S. Case No. 513 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 325, 379, 504/34 of the Indian Penal code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner have no criminal antecedent. He further submits that allegation of overt act is against the petitioner No.2 and there is no allegation of overt act against petitioner No.1. Considering the aforesaid fact, let the petitioner No.1 above named, in the event of arrest or surrender within one

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.70996 of 2018(2) dt.17-12-2018 2/2 month from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in connection with Jehanabad (Karauna) Police Station Case No. 513 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 Cr.P.C..

So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned the Court is not inclined to grant privilege anticipatory bail, accordingly it is hereby rejected. However, the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application will not cause prejudice to the petitioner No.2 and in the event, the petitioner No.2 surrender before the Court below and prays for regular bail, the Court below is hereby directed to dispose of the application for regular bail of the petitioner No.2 on the same day in accordance with law without being influenced by dismissal of this application on behalf of petitioner No.2.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) T.Kr./- U T