Laldeo Das v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56811 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2024 Thana- MOHAMMADPUR District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1.
Laldeo Das S/O Late Sitaram Das R/O Village Dumariya Ps Mahammadpur District Gopalganj 2.
Bharat Das S/O Late Sitaram Das R/O Village Dumariya Ps Mahammadpur District Gopalganj 3.
Binod Das S/O Laldeo Das R/O Village Dumariya Ps Mahammadpur District Gopalganj 4.
Ranjit Das @ Bhim Das S/O Laldeo Das R/O Village Dumariya Ps Mahammadpur District Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Indrajeet Bhushan, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 05-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, informant 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, 324, 326, 307, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the F.I.R., the allegation against the petitioners is that they along with co-accused persons have brutally assaulted the grandson of the informant because he denied to give ransom (rangdari) of Rs. 10 lakhs.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56811 of 2024(4) dt.05-12-2024 2/3 petitioners that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. They have been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation levelled against the petitioners is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. There is admitted land dispute between the parties and both the parties are agnates. There is no eye-witness of the alleged occurrence. He further submitted that petitioner no.1 has five, petitioner no. 2 has 3, petitioner no.3 has four and petitioner no. 4 has two criminal antecedents as mentioned in para-3 of this application.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments of learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of record Petitioner no. 1 is aged about 77 years old and petitioner no.2 is aged about 65 years old considering the age of the petitioners no. 1 and 2, let the above named petitioners no. 1 and 2, be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56811 of 2024(4) dt.05-12-2024 3/3 Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Mahammadpur P.S. Case No. 92 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. However, there is direct allegation against petitioners no. 3 and 4, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioners no. 3 and 4. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) annpurna/- U T