Lucho Sah And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.48250 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-368 Year-2017 Thana- BHAWANIPUR District- Purnia ======================================================

1. Lucho Sah, Son of Darogi Sah,

2. Ratan Sah, Son of Darogi Sah, Both are resident of VillageShripur, P.S.- Bhawanipur, District- Purnea. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Kanhaiya Kishore ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR ORAL ORDER 14-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners apprehends their arrest in connection with Bhawanipur P.S. Case No. 368 of 2017 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioners is of abusing and assaulting the wife of the Informant due to which she sustained injuries.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the injuries are simple in nature. There is land dispute between the parties and petitioners are next door neighbours of the Informant.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.48250 of 2018(2) dt.14-09-2018 2/2 Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners named above be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SDJM, Purnea, in connection with Bhawanipur P.S. Case No. 368 of 2017, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C with following conditions:-

(1) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned.

(2) Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and his absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason will be sufficient to cancel their bail bond.

(3) If the petitioners tampers 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.

(S. Kumar, J) ranjan/- U