Raj Kumar Rai And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.50297 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2149 Year- 2001 Thana -MUZFFARPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- MUZAFFARPUR ======================================================

1. Raj Kumar Rai son of Late Binda Rai

2. Jiya Lal Rai Son of Late Binda Rai

3. Dinesh Rai Son of Late Binda Rai

4. Guddu Rai @ Guddu Kumar Son of Raj Kumar Rai

5. Ram Chandra Rai son of Late Darshan Rai All are residents of Village - Chakdah Pachdahi, Police Station - Sakra, District - Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Kuldeep Rai son of Shri Jatan Rai resident of village - Chakdah, Pachdahi, P.S. Sakra, District - Muzaffarpur. .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manish Kumar 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-11-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. C-2149 of 2001, Trial No. 1780 of 2016 for the offences instituted under Sections 147, 323 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioners is of assaulting the complainant and further the petitioner no.1 is said to have snatched Rs. 275/- from the complainant. It is alleged that the accused persons also damaged the Banana tree and husk stored

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50297 of 2016 (2) dt.24-11-2016 2/2 worth Rs. 2500/-.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioners. The petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. There is admitted enmity between the parties. Superficial allegations have been made against the petitioners in the F.I.R.

On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the petitioners are named in the Complaint Petition. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioners above named be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today in connection with Complaint Case No. C-2149 of 2001, Trial No. 1780 of 2016 on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-(Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri Sunil Kumar Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Sudhir Singh, J.) Amit/- U T