Amrendra Dubey And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.79702 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-288 Year-2018 Thana- DINARA DistrictRohtas ======================================================
1. Amrendra Dubey son of Rajendra Dubey,
2. Pratima Devi wife of Amrendra Dubey, both are resident of VillageBhuaawl, P.s. - Dinara (Bhanas), Distt.- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party:
APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 25-01-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehends their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 341, 323, 325, 379, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Dinara (Bhanas) P.S. Case No. 288 of 2018.
3. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the backdrop of family dispute as the informant is the mother of petitioner no. 1 and mother-in-law of petitioner no. 2. There is no injury report to corroborate the accusation of assault. The petitioners claim clean antecedents.
4. Be that as it may, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of the petitioners' arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks from the date of communication of this order, let the above named petitioners be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.79702 of 2018(2) dt.25-01-2019 2/2 each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, Rohtas in connection with Dinara (Bhanas) P.S. Case No. 288 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C., and also subject to the following further conditions:
(i) That one of the bailors of each of the petitioners shall be their close relatives other than the petitioners herein. (ii) That the petitioners shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial. (iii) The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make themselves available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. (iv) The petitioner no. 1 shall remain physically present and petitioner no. 2 shall be well represented in Court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned. (Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- U T