Munnilal Singh And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.34616 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -407 Year- 2016 Thana -HARSIDHI DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================
1. Munnilal Singh, Son of Late Indradeo Singh,
2. Anirudh Singh, Son of Ramgranth Singh, Both are Resident of VillageGaighat , P.S.- Harsidhi, District- East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Navin Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 01-09-2017 Petitioners are permitted to make necessary correction in the prayer portion of the application.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
Petitioners are languishing in judicial custody since17.03.2017 in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 407 of 2016 G.R. No. 6391 of 2016 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that the petitioners along with three other named accused persons and four other unknown persons have killed his grand father because of land dispute.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34616 of 2017 (3) dt.01-09-2017 2/3 petitioners that they are innocent, and have been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. There was land dispute between the parties and although four persons including the petitioners have been named in the F.I.R. but as per the post mortem report there is only one injury and on whose injury the grand father of the informant succumbed is not specific. He submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no allegation of tampering of the prosecution witnesses by the petitioners. However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, let petitioners, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari, in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 407 of 2016 G.R. No. 6391 of 2016, subject to the condition that one of the bailors would be a close relative of the petitioners having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned police station/ court, who will file an affidavit stating his relationship with the petitioners and that petitioners will appear before the learned court below during trial as and when required
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34616 of 2017 (3) dt.01-09-2017 3/3 and failure to appear on two consecutive dates without assigning any reason will entail cancellation of their bail bonds. (Nilu Agrawal, J) Devendra/- U T