Vijay Chaudhary @ Vijay Chaudhari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42702 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1280 Year-2023 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR SADAR DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== 1.
Vijay Chaudhary @ Vijay Chaudhari, Son Of Mahesh Chaudhari @ Mahesh Chaudhary Village- Mohammadpur Patahi, (DHOVI Toli), P.S. - Sadar, Dist - Muzaffarpur 2.
Niraj Kumar, Son Of Vijay Chaudhary @ Vijay Chaudhari VillageMohammadpur Patahi, (DHOVI Toli), P.S. - Sadar, Dist - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/S
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Rakesh Mohan Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh Mr.Abhishek Kumar Ms.Rashmi Jha Mr.Sharad Kumar Verma Mr.Sagar Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-07-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 147, 323, 307, 337, 338, 379, 385, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42702 of 2024(2) dt.02-07-2024 2/3 submitted that it is not in dispute that petitioners were tenant of the informant and on account of landlord-tenant dispute, the instant case came to be instituted. It is also submitted that petitioners have already vacated the premises of the informant. It is next submitted that since there was a dispute, as such, the petitioners were going to institute a case when the same was objected by the side of the informant, on which an altercation took place and both sides assaulted each other. It is next submitted that allegation against petitioner no.1 is of assaulting the brother of the informant by an iron rod causing injury on his head and thereafter, Vijay Chaudhary (petitioner no.1) is alleged to have demanded extortion of Rs.5 Lacs and Niraj Kumar (petitioner no.2) is alleged to have snatched the golden chain of the informant.
4. It is next submitted that from perusal of the injury report, it would manifest that injury no.2 is said to be grievous while injury no.1 is simple in nature. It is also submitted that injury no.1 is with respect to injury caused to Mahesh Kumar on head while injury no.2 is swelling over left knee joint which amply demonstrates that the grievous injury is not on vital part of the body.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42702 of 2024(2) dt.02-07-2024 3/3 informant as well as A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur in connection with Sadar P. S. Case No.1280 of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T