Srikishun Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23042 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-178 Year-2019 Thana- KARPI District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.
SRIKISHUN MANJHI Son of Bangali Manjhi Resident of Village - Ramapur Khajuri, P.S.- Karpi in the district of Arwal. 2.
Ashok Manjhi Son of Biphan Manjhi Resident of Village - Ramapur Khajuri, P.S.- Karpi in the district of Arwal. 3.
Rajender Saw @ Rajendra Saw Son of Late Khudi Sao @ Late Pachkodi Manjhi Resident of Village - Ramapur Khajuri, P.S.- Karpi in the district of Arwal.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sunil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ashok Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-09-2020 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, through video conferencing.
The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Karpi Police Station Case No. 178 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147/149/353/447/188/283 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution story, as per the written report submitted by the Block Development Officer, is that on 02.09.2019, at about 09:15 AM, due to electricity problem, the local residents blocked the road, as a result of which, there was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23042 of 2020(2) dt.25-09-2020 2/3 hindrance in the free movement of traffic on the road. It has further been alleged that the District Magistrate, Arwal, on telephone, directed him to lodge First Information Report against the persons who were involved in the road blockade and upon enquiry, the First Information Report has been lodged against six named accused persons, including the petitioners, and 100 unknown persons, who were involved in the road blockade.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case without any basis. He further submits that the road was allegedly blocked on 02.09.2019, but the present First Information Report has been lodged on the basis of the telephonic instruction of the District Magistrate on 04.09.2019, i.e. after a delay of two days. He further submits that from perusal of the First Information Report, it would be evident that there were altogether 100 residents who had blocked the road, but with oblique motive, the name of the petitioners have been dragged in the present case.
After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the materials on record, I am inclined to grant the petitioners privilege of anticipatory bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23042 of 2020(2) dt.25-09-2020 3/3 This application is, accordingly, allowed.
Accordingly, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on bail, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Arwal, in connection with Karpi Police Station Case No. 178 of 2019.
It is made clear that at the time of furnishing bail bonds, all the parties shall follow the guidelines regarding social distancing.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √