Anil Ram And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.24938 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -17 Year- 2017 Thana -BASNAHI District- SAHARSA ======================================================
1. Anil Ram, Son of Late Sunil Ram.
2. Rajesh Ram, Son of Late Sunil Ram.
3. Sanjit Ram, Son of Late Sunil Ram.
4. Annu Sah @ Andu Sah @ Late Nago Sah. resident of Village petitioner no. 1 to 4 is Gondaram, P.S. Basanahi, District- Saharsa.
5. Ashok Mahto, Son of Late Sahdeo Mahto.
6. Baby Devi, D/o Upendra Poddar. Petitioner no. 5 & 6 both are resident of Village- Bhaura, P.S.- Sonbarsa Raj, O.P. Kash Nagar, District- Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anant Kumar-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 13-07-2017 Heard Mr. Roy for the petitioners. No one appears on behalf of the State.
Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners have filed the present application for grant of anticipatory bail in Basanahi P.S. Case No. 17 of 2017 registered under sections 384, 420 & 504 IPC. It is submitted that the land is the bone of contention which was declared surplus at the hands of the informant. The petitioners were occupying the land. Earlier to this, vide Annexure-2, the wife of petitioner no.1 had filed an FIR against the present informant for having misbehaved with her. Annexure-4 is another complaint lodged by petitioner no.1 against the present informant for having not executed the sale deed even after accepting a sum of Rs. 3.5 lac from him. Drawing attention of this Court to
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24938 of 2017 (3) dt.13-07-2017 2/2 the observation of the learned Sessions Judge, it is submitted that animosity between the parties is almost admitted. The allegation against the petitioners is that they came to the informant with an agreement and demanded Rs. 3.5 lac to execute the sale deed. The further allegation is of manhandling/fisting the informant.
Considering the background of the case in the light of the annexures attached to the application, in my view, the petitioners deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Let petitioners named above, in the event of arrest/surrender within four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of A.C.J.M. IV, Saharsa in Basanahi P.S. Case No. 17 of 2017 on condition that one of the bailors of each of the petitioners shall be their own/close family members. As soon as the charges are framed, they shall appear personally in the court concerned on each and every date fixed thereat. In case of default in appearance on two consecutive dates, the trial court shall have liberty to cancel their bail bonds and secure their arrest in accordance with law.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U T