Ramu Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.29832 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -156 Year- 2017 Thana -SINGHIYA District- SAMASTIPUR ======================================================

1. Ramu Yadav, Son of Late Ramsi Yadav,

2. Shivji Yadav, Son of Late Ramsi Yadav,

3. Shree Lal Yadav, Son of Late Ramsi Yadav.

4. Mangal Yadav, S/o Late Dasai Yadav.

5. Amarjeet Yadav, Son of Kushum Yadav.

6. Sushil Yadav, Son of Kushum Yasdav.

7. Amarnath Yadav @ Amarnath Kumar Yadav, Son of Late Thakko Yadav,

8. Ramsheray Yadav @ Ramashray Yadav, Son of Late Babaji Yadav,

9. Raj Kumar Yadav, Son of Sree Lal Yadav, All resident of Village- Lakshmanya, P.S.- Singhiya, DistrictSamastipur (Bihar). .... .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Iftekhar Mahmood, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-05-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Singhiya P. S. Case No. 156 of 2017 registered under

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29832 of 2018 (2) dt.18-05-2018 2/3 Sections 307, 323, 341, 354, 379, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is case and counter case and injuries have been caused to the members of both sides. It is submitted that most of injuries caused to the members of the prosecution party are simple and superficial and the grievous injuries are on nonvital part of the body for which no specific allegation has been made against any of the petitioners. It is further submitted that since the parties are of the same village and in course of Panchayati a free fight took place, at intervention of their friends and well wishers parties have resolved their dispute amicably and a compromise has also been arrived. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.

He submitted that the case is neither compoundable in nature nor compromise can be a ground for enlarging the petitioners on pre-arrest bail. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks from today, the petitioners named above are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.29832 of 2018 (2) dt.18-05-2018 3/3 ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Rosera in connection with Singhiya Police Station Case no. 156 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.) Kanchan/- U T