Ramesh Thakur v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59137 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2022 Thana- PANDARAK District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

RAMESH THAKUR S/o Kapil Thakur R/v- Mamarkhabad, P.S.- Pandarak, District- Patna 2.

VIJENDRA THAKUR S/o Late Govind Thakur R/v- Mamarkhabad, P.S.- Pandarak, District- Patna 3.

MINTA DEVI W/o Ramesh Thakur R/v- Mamarkhabad, P.S.- Pandarak, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP Mr.Chetanand Paswan, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 23-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No.72 of 2022 registered under Sections 341, 323, 307 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioners. Petitioner no.3 is a woman having no allegation against her. The petitioners have got no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59137 of 2022(4) dt.23-03-2023 2/3 criminal antecedent.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for bail stating that there is direct allegation that Ramesh Thakur (petitioner no.1), Ganesh Thakur, Vijendra Thakur (petitioner no.2), Akash Thakur and Putusa Devi having armed with lathi and iron rod started assaulting the informant. Petitioner no.1 and Ganesh Thakur are alleged to have assaulted Sunny (son of the informant) and Kaushal Kumar (brother of the informant) on account of which they sustained injuries to which the injury reports also corroborate. Therefore, petitioner nos.1 and 2 do not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the nature of allegations made against petitioner nos.1 and 2 as well as the injury reports, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, their prayer for bail is rejected. So far petitioner no.3 Minta Devi is concerned, having considered the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the above named petitioner no.3 be released on bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing personal bond to the satisfaction of A.C.J.M. 1st, Barh, Patna in connection with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59137 of 2022(4) dt.23-03-2023 3/3 Pandarak P.S. Case No.72 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Harish/- (Arvind Srivastava, J) U T