Arvind Kumar @ Ravindra Das v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53948 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2020 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria ====================================================== 1.

Arvind Kumar @ Ravindra Das Son of Ganauri Das Resident of Village - Matihani, P.S.- Mansi, District - Khagaria, Bihar. 2.

Sunita Devi Wife of Bihari Das Resident of Village - Matihani, P.S.- Mansi, District - Khagaria, Bihar.

3.

Manisha @ Nisha Devi Wife of Kishor Das Resident of Village - Matihani, P.S.- Mansi, District - Khagaria, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vinay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-08-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 308, 504, 354, 379 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that petitioners, during the course of investigation, were given the benefit of Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. but in a mechanical manner charge sheet came to be submitted, based on which cognizance was taken under Sections 341, 323, 308, 504, 354A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that police during the course of investigation

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53948 of 2024(2) dt.29-08-2024 2/2 never felt the need of arresting the petitioners nor filed a petition before the learned Magistrate seeking permission to arrest the petitioners and the petitioners co-operated in the investigation, as such, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioners to jail.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Mansi P.S. Case No. 65 of 2020 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

6. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands allowed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T