Patna High CourtCR. MISC./179/2017bail granted

Laddu Mehta And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

2017-01-11Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.179 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -94 Year- 2015 Thana -CHAUSA District- MADHEPURA ======================================================

1. Laddu Mehta, Son of late Shobhan Mehta,

2. Vakil Mehta, Son of late Shaini Mehta,

3. Sumit Mehta, son of Chando Mehta All residents of Village - Fulaut, Police Station - Chausa (Fulaut), District - Madhepura. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners are accused in connection with Chausa (Fulaut O.P) P.S. Case No. 94 of 2015, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.

The accusations is that 17 persons named in the F.I.R., including the petitioners, came variously armed with weapon near the informant and at the order of one Makko Mehta, Akhilesh Mehta shot fire at the back of the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are simply the member of the mob, while there is specific allegation of causing fire arm injury to the informant

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.179 of 2017 (2) dt.11-01-2017 2/2 against Akhilesh Mehta. Further submission is that petitioner no.1 is in custody since 26.09.2016 and petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are in jail custody since 06.10.2016, respectively. Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioners, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Uda-Kishunganj, Madhepura in connection with Chausa (Fulaut O.P.) P.S. Case No. 94 of 2015. Out of two sureties, one surety must be the close relative of the petitioner, who will file an affidavit showing his relation with the petitioner.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T