Sada Kant Jha And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.55157 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -168 Year- 2016 Thana -SARAI RANJAN District- SAMASTIPUR ======================================================
1. Sada Kant Jha,
2. Shashikant Jha,
3. Hari Shankar Jha, All sons of Shyam Nandan Jha,
4. Pankaj Kumar, son of Sada Kant Jha, All residents of Village- Jhakhara, Tole Kalyanpur, P.S.- Sarairanjan, District- Samastipur.
5. Mukesh Kumar Jha @ Mukesh Jha, son of Vijaykant Jha,
6. Sunil Kumar Jha, son of Late Bisheshwar Jha,
7. Ram Vinod Jha @ Jhingur Jha, son of Late Jugut Jha,
8. Devanand Jha, son of Late Kapileshwar Jha, All resident of VillageSarairanjan tole Kalyanpur, P.S.- Sarairanjan, District- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Narayansingh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Yogendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 16-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 168 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 447, 384, 385, 427, 379, 504 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there is case and counter case between the parties and there is also an existing land dispute between them. The allegation is that around 100 persons along with petitioners came to the house of
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55157 of 2016 (2) dt.16-01-2017 2/2 informant and looted the house hold articles but the informant only named the present petitioners, which itself shows that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the State also could not controvert the fact that there is an existing land dispute between the parties. Having heard both sides and in view of the fact that there is an existing land dispute between the parties and the allegations made against these petitioners are general and omnibus in nature, let the petitioners above named, in the event of the six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 (Rs. Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Samastipur in connection with Sarairanjan P.S. Case No. 168 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U