Bijendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62069 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-440 Year-2021 Thana- CHHATAPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== BIJENDRA YADAV S/o Late Karmlal Yadav R/o Village- Bhiwaha Ward no. 06, P.S.- Chhatapur, Distt- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Naresh Kumar Mehta For the Opposite Party/s :

Dr. Ajeet Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-02-2023 Heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner and Ld. APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Chhatapur P.S. Case No. 440 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case as emerges from the FIR is that when the informant was fencing his land, the petitioner along with his associates came there and started abusing and assaulting him by means of farsa and when his father came to save him, other accused persons assaulted him with Lathi, due to which they sustained injuries. It is also alleged

2/4 that other co-accused have snatched the golden chain from the neck and 3500/- rupee from the pocket of the informant.

Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that there is case and counter-case and alleged offence is minor in nature. He also submits that investigation in this case is complete and charge-sheet has already been submitted.

He further submits that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 24.04.2022.

It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one.

However, Ld. APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this application is allowed, directing the petitioner, above-

3/4 named, to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Ld. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Supaul in connection with Chhatapur P.S. Case No. 440 of 2021, on the following conditions: (i) The petitioner will make himself available for interrogation by a police officer/court as and when required. (ii) The petitioner will undertake that investigation/trial will not get hampered on account of his absence or non-cooperation. He must be available to the police or the court whenever his presence is required. (iii) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

(iv) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents, Ld. court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has

4/4 concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the same.

(v) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong, Ld. court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

Ld. counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects, if any, pointed out by the office within a period of one month and the Registry is directed to issue the certified copy of this order only after removal of office objections.

(Jitendra Kumar, J) ramesh/- U T