Anil Paswan And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.11851 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -441 Year- 2016 Thana -PATORI District- SAMASTIPUR ======================================================

1. Anil Paswan Son of Lakhindar Paswan

2. Gango Paswan Son of Lakhindar Paswan

3. Daimuni Devi Wife of Lakhindar Paswan Resident of Village- Pachhiyari Tara Dhamaun, Police Station- Patory, District- Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Upendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 22-03-2017 The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Patory P.S. Case No. 441 of 2016, registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379, 504 and 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that allegation against the petitioner no. 1 is that he snatched a golden chain and allegation against petitioner no. 2 and 3 is that they assaulted the informant by means of fists and slaps and there is case and counter case between the parties in the backdrop of land dispute.

Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides, in view of the fact that only

general and omnibus allegation of assault and snatching golden chain has been made against all these petitioners and they have no criminal antecedent, let the petitioners above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 25,000 (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Samastipur in connection with Patory P.S. Case No. 441 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. This is further subject to the condition that:- (i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be a local person having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned Court.

(ii) The petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation and make themselves available as and when required by the police and on the event of failure on their part to appear before the police on two consecutive dates without showing any genuine reasons, the prosecution is free to move for cancellation

of their bail bonds It is also made clear that if the petitioners again found involved in any of such offence, in future, their bail bonds will be cancelled.

.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) sunil/- U T