Randheer Kumar @ Randheer Yadav @ Ramgulam Yadav @ Randheer Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39859 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-265 Year-2020 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== Randheer Kumar @ Randheer Yadav @ Ramgulam Yadav @ Randheer Kumar Yadav Son Of Late Nirsu Prasad Yadav Resident Of Ward No.15, Nagar Parishad Supaul, Ps And District - Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amrit Abhijat For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.PP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 06-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is expected to honour his undertaking to remove the defects as pointed out by the office when called upon to do so by the office. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with Supaul P.S. Case no. 265 of 2020 instituted for the offence under Sections 436, 341, 323, 448, 354(A), 144, 149, 447 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(b)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegation against the petitioner is of putting the house on fire. It is further alleged that all the accused persons rushed towards the members of the informant and assaulted each and every member and tried to outrage the modesty of his wife.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39859 of 2020(3) dt.06-12-2021 2/2 has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. There is case and counter case. Petitioner is only an order giver and on his instance the coaccused has put on fire to the house of the informant. The whole story is a fabricated and concocted only with a view to harass the petitioner.

Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within a period of four weeks from today and in the event of his arrest or surrender in connection with Supaul P.S. Case no. 265 of 2020, he will be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U