Sachidanand Yadav @ Sachidanand And ORS. v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.43173 of 2014 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -286 Year- 2014 Thana -SAUR BAZAR District- SAHARSA ======================================================
1. Sachidanand Yadav @ Sachidanand
2. Sadanand Yadav Both Sons of Late Goshai Yadav
3. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav @ Sanjeev Kumar, Son of Sadanand Yadav All resident of Village-Kanp East, Tola Tengha, Ward No.-9, P.S.- Sourbazar, District-Saharsa.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha For the Informant : Mr. Santosh Chandra Bhaskar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Mahesh Roy (A.P.P.) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 27-03-2015 This is an application on behalf of the petitioners seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 385 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners informs that petitioner no. 1, namely, Sachidanand Yadav @ Sachidanand, has been arrested during the pendency of this application.
The application to the extent it relates to petitioner no. 1 stands dismissed as having become infructuous. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43173 of 2014 (2) dt.27-03-2015 2/3 well as learned counsel representing the informant and learned State counsel.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the allegation against petitioner no. 2, namely, Sadanand Yadav, is that he hit the informant with an iron rod causing injuries on his head. As regard petitioner no. 3, it is alleged that he snatched a sum of Rs. 36,000/- from one Dinesh Yadav. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petty dispute between the parties resulted into institution of the present criminal case. He further submits that the dispute between the parties arose over plucking of mangoes from trees belonging to the informant.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant contends that the injury upon the informant has been found to be grave and, therefore, the petitioners do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. Be that as it may, keeping in mind the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, as noted above, and the genesis of the occurrence, as mentioned in the First Information Report, let the petitioner nos. 2 and 3, abovenamed, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks, be released on bail on
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43173 of 2014 (2) dt.27-03-2015 3/3 furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharsa, in connection with Sour Bazaar P.S. Case No. 286 of 2014, subject to condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Praveen-II/- U T