Inardev Ram @ Pappu Ram @ Indeo Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27673 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-434 Year-2024 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR TOWN DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== Inardev Ram @ Pappu Ram @ Indeo Ram Son of Late Bainathi Ram Resident of village - Kanti @ Kanti Kaswa, Ward No.- 06, P.S.- Kanti, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL ORAL ORDER 06-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the counsel appearing for the respondent-State.

2. It is the first regular bail application submitted by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 434 of 2024 dated 07.07.2024 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 108, 109, 118, 352, 351(3), 287, 308(3), 62, 3/5 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. According to the case of prosecution, the land in question belongs to the informant and her family. It is alleged that on said land one house was situated wherein the present applicant and other accused persons have forcible taken possession. As per the information given by the informant it is alleged that on the date of incident when the husband of the informant reached the land in question and asked the accused persons to vacate the land, they

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27673 of 2025(2) dt.06-05-2025 2/3 demanded Rs. 2 lakhs and threatened to lodge a false case under the Atrocities Act against the husband of the informant. Thereafter, the husband of the informant himself got fired in front of the D.M. Office. On these grounds and on the basis of information given by the informant offences has been registered against the applicant.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner herein is innocent and is falsely implicated in this case. Virtually the land in question belongs to one Prabhu Ram, the informant or husband were not the owner of the said land. He further submits that though in the dying declaration, allegation of torture has been made by the victim but only on the basis of that it can not be said that the petitioner committed alleged offences of abetment of commitment of suicide, as ingredients of investigation is missing. Lastly, he submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.02.2025 and considering the detention period of the applicant he prays for the grant of benefit of bail.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondentState opposes the prayer of bail.

6. Considering the submission made by the counsels and further considering the material available on record particularly, considering the detention period and without commenting on the other merits of the case. I am of the view that the present applicant should be granted the benefit of bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27673 of 2025(2) dt.06-05-2025 3/3 connection with Muzaffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 434 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties, to the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

(Arvind Singh Chandel , J) Siddharth Soni/- U T