Rajesh Jha @ Mathari @ Madari And ORS. v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.12138 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -107 Year- 2016 Thana -DIGHALBANK District- KISANGANJ ======================================================

1. RAJESH JHA @ MATHARI @ MADARI, Son of Mahant Kumar Jha,

2. Pinki Devi Jha, Wife of Rajesh Jha,

3. Shankar Sah, Son of Jagdish Sah

4. Saraswati Devi, Wife of Shankar Sah,

5. Pappu Sah, Son of Shankar Sah,

6. Sanjay Sah, Son of Bharat Sah,

7. Sandhya Devi @ Shandiya Devi, Wife of Sanjay Sah,

8. Bharat Sah, Son of Yadunandan Sah,

9. Kismati Devi, Wife of Bharat Sah,

10. Gita Devi, Wife of Dinesh Sah, All Resident of Village- Dakshin Basti Tulsia, P.S.- Dighalbank, District- Kishanganj. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Dharampal Bharti, Son of Jaddu Lal Sah, Resident of Village- Tulasiya, P.S.- Dighalbank, District- Kishanganj.

.... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Radha Mohan Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 25-07-2017 This has come under the heading 'To Be Mentioned' at the instance of learned counsel for the petitioners for modification of order dated 24.3.2017 passed in this case. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in third paragraph of the order dated 24.3.2017 it has wrongly been mentioned that Dighalbank P.S.Case No. 75 of 2016 has been filed by one of the petitioner in place of Pinky Devi against the informant.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12138 of 2017 (4) dt.25-07-2017 2/3 However, from perusal of record it appears that submission of learned counsel appears to be correct. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the order dated 24.3.2017 it has been recorded that in this case compromise has been arrived at between the parties but that is not a fact and the fact is that case has not been compromised as yet. Learned counsel submits that one Pinky Devi, who is wife of brother of the informant, has lodged a case under Section 498A and other sections of the IPC against the informant and his family members being Mahesi P.S.Case No. 203 of 2014 and later on she filed a case at Dighalbank being Dighalbank P.S.Case No. 75 of 2016 as sasural of Pinky Devi is at Dighalbank and the informant considering the hands of the petitioners and others in getting the case lodged has lodged the present case.

From perusal of the record it appears that on the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioners and it further appears that the injury on the person of injured was grievous in nature. However, in the facts and circumstances bail was granted to the petitioners. The aforesaid order be treated as part of order dated 24.3.2017.

With the aforesaid modification in the order dated

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12138 of 2017 (4) dt.25-07-2017 3/3 24.3.2017, the mentioning slip of learned counsel for the petitioners at Flag 'A' is disposed of.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) spal/- U