Pramod Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76369 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-135 Year-2016 Thana- CHAUSA DistrictMadhepura ====================================================== 1.

Pramod Yadav 2.

Babloo Yadav Both are Sons of Prithvi Yadav and Resident of VillageBhatgama, P.S.-Chousa, District-Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Alok Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party:

APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 15-03-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Chousa P.S. Case No. 135 of 2016.

3. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the backdrop of land dispute and there is case and counter case between the parties. The injuries are simple in nature. The petitioners claim clean antecedents.

4. Be that as it may, 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 Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Udakishunganj, Madhepura in connection with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76369 of 2018(3) dt.15-03-2019 2/2 Chousa P.S. Case No. 135 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 relatives 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, if not already concluded, 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) Ibrar//- U T