Dhiraj Kumar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.58414 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2018 Thana- PANDARAK District- Patna ======================================================
1. Dhiraj Kumar, Son of Sri Anil Mahto,
2. Suraj Kumar, Son of Sri Anil Mahto,
3. Anil Mahto, Son of Late Viraj Mahto,
4. Ajay Mahto, Son of Sri Ramtunuk Mahto, All resident of Village- Pandarak, Pipartar, P.S.- Pandarak, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Amit Kumar Anand, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Shantanu Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 28-09-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
In this case, the petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No. 46 of 2018 registered for offences under sections 147, 149 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code.
In the present case, one Sanjeev Kumar met with an accident, he was brought to the P.M.C.H. for his treatment but, he died in course of his treatment. Against that, the villagers paralyzed the NH-31, the police tried to pacify them but they refused to clear the road.
The allegation has been made against the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58414 of 2018(2) dt.28-09-2018 2/2 petitioners that they were members of the mob. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, Patna in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No. 46 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also subject to condition that whenever the police will call the petitioners for investigation/interrogation, they will remain present and if they would not present themselves, the privilege of grant of anticipatory bail shall be deemed to have been canceled. (Shivaji Pandey, J) rishi/- U T