Bipin Ram And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.12475 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -287 Year- 2014 Thana -BARBIGHA District- SEKHPURA ======================================================

1. Bipin Ram ,

2. Gautam Ram

3. Uttam Ram, All Sons of Late Dani Ram, R/o Village- Chhema, P.S.- Sheikhopur Sarai, District- Sheikhpura.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 17-04-2017 Heard both sides.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in Barbigha P.S. Case No. 287/2014, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Kailash Ram the informant alleged that his son Ranjay Kumar had gone to Barbigha market along with Raju Kumar. His son came across with Vikky Kumar who took Ranjay and Raju to the house of his Phua where marriage of his Phua was to be solemnized. While the son of the informant Ranjay, Raju and Vikki were returning, the petitioners administered some intoxicant substance to Ranjay and assaulted him with iron rod. The son of the informant somehow came and informed the informant about

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12475 of 2017 (3) dt.17-04-2017 2/3 the occurrence.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 279, 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code. The F.I.R. was lodged after 26 days of the occurrence, but the learned court below took cognizance under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners and others. It is further submitted Mantu Ram, Vikki Kumar @ Sagar Ram have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order passed in Cr. Misc. 2694/2017. The case of the petitioners stands on the same footing as that of other accused persons.

Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners, but could not be able to distinguish the case of the petitioners from other accused persons who have been granted anticipatory bail. Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that similarly situated co-accused persons have already been granted anticipatory bail, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12475 of 2017 (3) dt.17-04-2017 3/3 each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate- II, Sheikhpura in connection with Barbigha P.S. Case No. 287/2014, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr. P.C.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) Vinita/- U T