Shatrughan @ Shatroghan @ Satrodhan @ Satrudhan Patel And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.19395 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -326 Year- 2016 Thana -MAJORGANJ District- SITAMARHI ====================================================== 1.
SHATRUGHAN @ SHATROGHAN @ SATRODHAN @ SATRUDHAN PATEL, son of Lal Bachan Patel,
2. Lal Bachan Patel, son of Sone Lal Patel, null
3. Lalita Devi, wife of Lal Bachan Patel, All resident of VillagePachaharwa Tola Hanuman Nagar, P.S.- Majorganj, District- Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Mr. Santosh Kumar For the State : Mr. Sri Bal Mukund Prasad Sinha For the Informant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 06-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in a case instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 323/34 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
There is direct allegation against petitioner no.1, Shatrughan alias Shatroghan alias Satrodhan alias Satrudhan Patel who has caused injury. There is no direction allegation against petitioner nos. 2 and 3 who are father and mother. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event of arrest or surrender within four weeks from today,
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.19395 of 2017 (4) dt.06-07-2017 let petitioner nos. 2 and 3, namely, Lal Bachan Patel and Lalita Devi, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi in connection with Majorganj P.S. Case No. 326 of 2016, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. So far petitioner no.1 is concerned, this Court is not inclined to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. Accordingly his prayer for bail is rejected. However, if the petitioner no.1 surrenders before the court below within a period of four weeks, the court below will pass an order on its own merit. Vinay/- (Shivaji Pandey, J) U T