Brijmohan Rai @ Kanchan And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.52327 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -36 Year- 2017 Thana -RAGHOPUR District- VAISHALI(HAJIPUR) ======================================================

1. Brijmohan Rai @ Kanchan

2. Lal Mohan Ray

3. Mantu ray. All Sons of Late Ramchandra Rai, Resident of VillageRustampur, P.S.-Raghopur, District-Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Mishra For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Ram Sevak Choudhary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 28-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners apprehend arrest in Raghopur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Sections 302, 201, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged by the informant that his sister, Rinku Devi, married to Bhusan Rai, has been killed by the petitioners and they also concealed her dead body.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. There is no criminal antecedent against them and the allegations leveled against them are general and omnibus. All the petitioners are full brother of the deceased's husband who are living separately. In such circumstances, prayer for anticipatory bail is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.52327 of 2017 (3) dt.28-11-2017 2/2 allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners named above in the event of their arrest or surrender in the court below within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 36 of 2017 to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, IVth, Vaishali subject to condition as laid down u/S 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

with further conditions (1) bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned, (2) petitioners shall cooperate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason, will automatically cancel bail bond of the petitioners and (3) if petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioners.

(Sanjay Priya, J) sushma/- U