Md. Daud v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43626 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2025 Thana- PARBATTA District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== 1.
Md. Daud S/O Late Sk. Guddar Resident of village- Yamuniya, PS- Kharik, District- Bhagalpur 2.
Ankit Jha @ Mangal Jha @ Ankit Kumar Jha S/O Sunil Kumar Jha Resident of village- Tulsipur, PS- Kharik, District- Bhagalpur 3.
Gaurav Kumar Jha @ Gaurav Jha S/O Sunil Kumar Jha Resident of villageTulsipur, PS- Kharik, District- Bhagalpur 4.
Sunil Kumar Jha @ Sunil Jha S/O Late Siya Ram Jha Resident of villageTulsipur, PS- Kharik, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Mohammed Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 23-07-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case no.7 of 2025, registered under sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 324(5), 352 and 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that he has taken the land described in the F.I.R. on lease and had done cultivation thereon. It is stated that on the date of occurrence, the four petitioners herein along with 7-8 unknown accused came variously armed. The petitioner nos.1 and 4
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43626 of 2025(2) dt.23-07-2025 2/3 started to hurl abuses. They pointed a pistol in his direction and at their instigation it is stated that bananas cultivated by the informant were forcibly taken by the accused/petitioners. The informant further states that on 10.1.2025, co-accused Md. Daud had also demanded a rangdari of Rs.30,000/- from the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case by the informant. There are large number of pending disputes between the parties including Title Suit no.11 of 2013, lodged by the petitioner no.4 against the uncle of the informant. It is further submitted that a pattanama was also executed by the petitioner no.4 in favour of co-accused Md. Daud which was not to the liking of the informant which is also the cause of false implication of the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the falsity of the allegations would be evident from the fact that inspite of the allegations of the petitioners being armed with so many weapons etc., there is no allegation of use of any of the weapons nor any person was injured in the entire occurrence. The antecedents of the petitioners are mainly those cases which have been lodged as a result of disputes between the parties. The petitioners undertake to cooperate in the investigation/trial.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43626 of 2025(2) dt.23-07-2025 3/3
5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioners in the F.I.R., the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners including those in reference to Anneuxres-P/2 and P/3 to the petition and no person having been injured in the occurrence, in the facts of the case it is directed that all the four petitioners above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks, be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case no.7 of 2025 on each of them furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Naugachia, Bhagalpur. (Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U T