Bhim Rishideo @ Bhim Rishi v. The State Of Bihar
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21835 of 2016 (3) dt.15-07-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.21835 of 2016 ======================================================
1. Arjun Rishideo @ Arjun Rishi son of Late Sikam Lal Rishideo, resident of village- Masooria, P.S.- Sarsi, District- Purnea.... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== with Criminal Miscellaneous No.21882 of 2016 ======================================================
1. Bhim Rishideo @ Bhim Rishi Son of late Sikam Lal Rishideo Resident of Village- Masooria, PS Sarsi, District Purnea..... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
(In Cr.Misc. No.21835 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Anand For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. T.P.Mandal(App) (In Cr.Misc. No.21882 of 2016) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amit Kumar Anand For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 15-07-2016 Above noted both the applications have arisen out of one occurrence i.e. Sarsi P.S. Case No. 117 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 354, 452, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Allegedly, the petitioners, other FIR named accused persons and 5-6 unknown entered into the house of the informant, assaulted her and her husband and made her necked by tearing her clothes.
Submission is of false implication and that prosecution
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21835 of 2016 (3) dt.15-07-2016 story appears not probable and reliable, the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent, no offence under Sections 354 and 307 IPC is made out, now good sense has prevailed between the parties, the informant and her husband has filed compromise petition in the learned court below, co-accused Sahdeo Rishideo has been allowed bail.
Learned APP fairly submits that co-accused Sahdeo Rishideo has already been allowed bail.
In the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioners above named of both the cases are directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri P. K. Bharti, J. M. Ist Class, Purnea in connection with Sarsi P.S. Case No. 117 of 2015, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioners shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on their part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioners from privilege of bail.
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T