Sadhu Yadav And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46622 of 2018 (2) dt.25-08-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.46622 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -2040 Year- 2012 Thana -WEST CHAMPARAN COMPLAINT District- WESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH) ======================================================

1. Sadhu Yadav Son of Gagandeo Yadav

2. Ramchandra Yadav Son of Nathu Yadav Both are resident of VillageSrinagar Pujahan, P.S. Srinagar, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Surendra Mahto Son of Saryug Mahto Resident of Village- Pujha Patzirwa, P.S. Shrinagar, District- East Champaran. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Prem Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 25-08-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Complaint Case No. 2040(C)/2012, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504 and 506/149 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the written report, there is specific allegation against co-accused Upendra Yadav of causing firearm injury. There is general and omnibus allegation against these petitioners. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is allowed. In the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.46622 of 2018 (2) dt.25-08-2018 event of surrender/arrest of the petitioners, named above, within six weeks from today, in connection with Complaint Case No. 2040(C)/2012, they shall be released on anticipatory 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, Bettiah, West Champaran, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 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) petitioners 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 automatically cancel bail bond of the petitioners and (3) if petitioners tamper 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 petitioners.

(Sanjay Priya, J.) Rakhi U T