Raju Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.50661 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -67 Year- 2017 Thana -NASRIGANJ District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Raju Yadav, Son of Badeya Singh @ Vijay Shankar Singh, Resident of Village-Amarpur, P.S.-Rajpur. District-Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ajay Kumar-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 25-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends arrest in Nasriganj (Rajpur) P.S. Case No. 67 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Sections-384, 385, 386, 395, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the written report, there is specific allegation against co-accused Sudama Yadav of making demand of extortion.

There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner that he along with other accused came armed with weapons and committed loot and also started firing on account of which, Md. Abdul Khalid sustained injury in his left thigh. In such circumstances, prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner named above in the event of his arrest or surrender in the court below within six weeks from the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.50661 of 2017 (4) dt.25-01-2018 2/2 date of receipt/production of copy of this order, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with in Nasriganj (Rajpur) P.S. Case No. 67 of 2017 to the satisfaction of learned S.J.-Istcum-ACJM, Bikramganj, Rohtas subject to condition as laid down u/S 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. with further conditions (1) bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned, (2) petitioner 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 liable to cancel bail bond of the petitioner and (3) if petitioner tampers 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 petitioner. (Sanjay Priya, J) A.K.V./- U T