Mahendra Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.26658 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -172 Year- 2015 Thana -KONCH District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Mahendra Yadav, son of Doman Yadav,

2. Pundeo Yadav, S/o Sukhdeo Yadav,

3. Jogendra Yadav @ Jogendra Kumar, S/o Jagan Yadav, all resident of village- Mithapur Tola (Shiva Bigha), P.S.- Konch, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Anusuiya Jaiswal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 2/ 06-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and the State.

The Petitioners apprehend their arrest in Konch P.S. Case No.172 of 2015 instituted for the offence under Section(s) 363, 366-A/34 Indian Penal Code.

As per written report, daughter of the informant used to talk with Pintu Yadav. The informant suspected that his daughter has been kidnapped by Pintu Yadav along with these petitioners.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the daughter of the informant had love affair with Pintu Yadav. She has eloped with him and is living in Ludhiana. From the written report, it appears that there is no

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26658 of 2017 (2) dt.06-07-2017 2/2 allegation of any specific overt act against these petitioners. In the facts and circumstances of the case, prayer of the petitioners for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed. In the event of surrender/arrest of the petitioners, named above, within six weeks from today in connection with Konch P.S. Case No.172 of 2015, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of `10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya, 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.