Ravindra Singh And ORS v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21721 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -105 Year- 2017 Thana -SHEKHPURA District- SEKHPURA ======================================================

1. Ravindra Singh, Son of Chandrika Singh,

2. Binod Kumar, Son of Nawal Singh,

3. Bittu Kumar @ Rahul Kumar, Son of Srikant Singh,

4. Nitesh Kumar, Son of Sri Kant Singh, All Resident of Village- Verma, P.S.- Sekhpura (Siwari) District- Sheikhpura. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar Pandey ======================================================

CORAM:

HONOURABLE MR.

JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 01-06-2017 Heard counsel for the petitioners, State and the informant.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Shekhpura (Sirari) P.S. Case No. 105 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 326 and 327 of the Indian Penal Code.

Earlier the case was listed under the heading "To Be Mentioned" as there is marriage of the daughter of the petitioner No.1 considering the aforesaid fact this case was posted for admission on priority basis. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant intervened in the matter and he has submitted that false statement has been made by the petitioner regarding marriage.

The learned counsel for the petitioner filed supplementary affidavit along with the certificate of the Mukhiya, which support the claim of petitioners regarding marriage in the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21721 of 2017 (2) dt.01-06-2017 2/2 family. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the informant stating therein that the statement regarding marriage ceremony in the family of the petitioners is false. Today, when the case was listed for admission, the counsel for the informant was asked to ascertain from his client, whether the statement made in the supplementary affidavit and the certificate regarding the marriage in the family of the petitioners is false or true. After instruction, counsel for the informant admits that today he has been instructed by his client that there is marriage in the family of petitioner No.1.

Having regard to the conduct of the informant in this case and the statement made in Para-03 of the petition that there is no criminal antecedent, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from the receipt or production of the order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sheikhpura or his successor Court in connection with Sheikhpura (Sirari) P.S. Case No. 105 of 2017, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) manish/- U T