Sarbind Yadav @ Shravan Kumar Bharti And ANR v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.36382 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -30 Year- 2016 Thana -KASIMBAZAR District- MUNGER ======================================================
1. Sarbind Yadav @ Shravan Kumar Bharti Son of late Shiv Charan Yadav
2. Rahul Yadav @ Rahul Kumar Son of Yogendra Yadav, Both are Resident of Sandalpur, P.S. Kasim Bazar, District Munger. .... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ======================================================= Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party : APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 15-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act registered in connection with Kasim Bazar P.S Case No. 30 of 2016.
3. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated as a counter blast to Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 29 of 2016 by the father of the petitioner no. 2. Even according to the FIR the firing allegedly made by the petitioners did not hit anyone and no injury is attributed to them.
4. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances, in the event of the petitioners' arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks from the date of communication of this order, let the above named petitioners be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger in
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36382 of 2016 (2) dt.15-09-2016 2/2 connection with Kasim Bazar P.S Case No. 30 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C., and also subject to the following further conditions:
(i) That one of the bailors of each of the petitioners shall be their close relative other than the petitioners herein. (ii) That the petitioners shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial. (iii) That the petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation and make themselves available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(iv) That the petitioners shall remain physically present in Court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned.
(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/BT U T