Pramod Sao And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.30755 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -37 Year- 2017 Thana -HULASGANJ District- JEHANABAD ======================================================
1. Pramod Sao, Son of Ramashish Sao.
2. Santosh Sao, Son of Ramashish Sao,
3. Upendra Sao, Son of Ramashish Sao, All are resident of VillageKandaul, P.S.- Hulasganj, District- Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivendra Prasad For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 22-08-2017 Heard both sides.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Hulasganj P.S. Case No. 37 of 2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 325, 307, 379, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant alleged that Santosh Sao assaulted him with lathi on his head and the informant got bleeding injury. Pramod Sao assaulted him with sickle on his left hand and hand was broken.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no allegation of assault against Upendra Sao. There is a counter version being Hulasganj P.S. Case No. 36 of 2017 and the petitioners also received injuries. It appears that there is a case and
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30755 of 2017 (3) dt.22-08-2017 counter case. On the ground of assault made by Santosh Sao the informant got simple injury but assault made by Pramod Sao the informant got grievous injury. There is no allegation of assault against Upendra Sao.
Considering the case and counter case, the injuries alleged to have been caused by petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are simple in nature, the above named petitioners in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in Hulasganj P.S. Case No. 37 of 2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
So far as petitioner no. 1 Pramod Sao is concerned, he assaulted the informant with sickle on his left hand and hand was broken and the injuries were found to be grievous, I am not inclined to enlarge petitioner no. 1 namely Pramod Sao on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
Devendra/- (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) U T