Jai Narain Rai And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.41391 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -206 Year- 2016 Thana -SUGAULI DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================
1. Jai Narain Rai, Son of Late Doma Rai,
2. Ram Ekbal Rai @ Ramikbal Ray Son of Jai Narain Rai,
3. Mithlesh Ray @ Mithlesh Kumar @ Mithlesh Rai Son of Jawahir Rai, All R/o village- Sagauli Tola, P.S.- Sagauli, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kundan Rathore Mr. Rajesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Satya Nand Shukla ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 10-10-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
In this case the petitioners apprehend their arrest in Sugauli P.S. Case No. 206/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 324, 504, 307, 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The allegation has been attributed against petitioner no. 1 is that he has taken Rs. 25,000/- from the pocket of the informant. There is specific allegation against petitioner no. 2 of causing injury by Farsa to the informant and also of firing. There is no allegation against petitioner no. 3.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.41391 of 2017 (2) dt.10-10-2017 2/2 Considering the entire facts, let petitioner nos. 1 and 3 above named in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari at East Champaran in connection with Sugauli P.S. Case No. 206/2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. So far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, I am not inclined to enlarge petitioner no. 2, Ram Ekbal Rai @ Ramikbal Ray, on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Shivaji Pandey, J.) Rakhi U T