Binod Rai @ Bindod Rai And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38581 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -41 Year- 2016 Thana -PUSA District- SAMASTIPUR ======================================================

1. Binod Rai @ Bendod Rai S/o Khageshwar Rai

2. Amriti Devi @Amiti Devi W/o Binod Rai Resident of VillageBishanpur Bathua, PS.- Pusa, District Samastipur. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioners : Mr. Sushil Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party : APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 20-09-2016 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, 447, 354, 379, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Pusa P.S. Case No. 41 of 2016.

3. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in an incident relating to the family dispute and both the parties are agnates. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.

4. Having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, 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 bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in connection with Pusa P.S. Case No. 41 of 2016, subject to the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38581 of 2016 (2) dt.20-09-2016 2/2 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 relative other than the petitioners herein. (ii) That the petitioners shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.

(iii) The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation 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 petitioner no. 2 will be well represented in Court and petitioner no. 1 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) B.T/Chandran U T