Jeewach Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.520 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -372 Year- 2015 Thana -MADHEPURA District- MADHEPURA ======================================================
1. Jeewach Yadav Son of Late Bhumi Yadav null
2. Tej Narain Yadav, Son of Kamleshwari Yadav
3. Anil Yadav Son of Late Deo Narain Yadav
4. Anjali Devi Wife of Sunil Yadav All residents of Village- Baali, Police Station- Ghaildh, District- Madhepura.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad,& Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocates For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. B.M.P.Sinha (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-03-2016 Learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioner No.4, Anjali Devi has been arrested during the pendency of this application and this application so far as petitioner no.4 is concerned, has become infurctuous. Accordingly, this application so far as petitioner No.4 above-named is concerned, is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.
This application arises out of Madhepura
(Ghailadh) P.S. case No. 372 of 2015, disclosing offences under Sections 341,323,324,379,436,307,504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegedly, these petitioners along with the other co-accused persons, total 19 in number were objecting to the informant, who was carrying out repair work of his house. The accused persons are said to have assaulted the informant and his family members variously.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the petitioners and the informant are agnates and there is land dispute between them. He has further submitted that there was a title suit instituted in the year 2008 being Title Suit No. 5 of 2008 which was decreed in favour of the petitioners' family. He, accordingly, contends that civil dispute between the petitioner and the informant is the reason behind institution of a false case. It has been stated in paragraph 3 of the application that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 have no criminal antecedents.
Considering the submissions as above and the genesis of the occurrence, this application on behalf of petitioners No. 1,2 and 3, is allowed. Let the petitioners No.
1,2 and 3 the event of their arrest/surrender within four weeks from today in the Court below be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in Madhepura (Ghailardh) P. S. Case No. 372 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
This is subject to the condition that the petitioners shall present themselves before the Police/Court, as the case may be, as and when required and in the event of failure on their part to appear before the Court on two consecutive occasions, their bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ArunKumar/- U