Patna High CourtCR. MISC./74105/2024bail granted

Sachindra Pd. Singh @ Sachindra Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2024-10-22Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74105 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-325 Year-2024 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka ====================================================== Sachindra Pd. Singh @ Sachindra Singh S/o Late Chulhai Singh R/o VillageNandlal Patti, Police Station- Amarpur, District- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Shyama Rani, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 22-10-2024 Heard Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Shyama Rani representing the informant.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Amarpur P.S. Case No. 325 of 2024 for the offence punishable under sections 341, 323, 307, 324, 354, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act lodged on 24.05.2024 by the informant, Maya Devi.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that due to land dispute, her nephew Laxmi Narayan Singh and Jairam Singh called her son, Amresh Kumar and during the alleged measurement, after abuse, they resorted to assault. When this was objected to, allegation is that Jairam Singh opened fire causing injury to her son, further , Laxmi Narayan gave 'kudal' blow on the chest of her son, the same allegation is on Kanchan Devi who injured the hand of her son whereas Satya Narayan gave blow on the head. Further, omnibus allegation of assault is on all the other members of the family of the petitioner, the last allegation is that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74105 of 2024(2) dt.22-10-2024 2/3 this petitioner, before leaving snached the ear ring of the informant. Accordingly, the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the petitioner and the informant are of the same family, she being the elder sister-in-law. There was a land dispute, measurement was going on, certain scuffle took place but exaggerated FIR in which so far as his role is concerned, the omnibus allegation of assault and snatching of the ear ring has been made, he is in custody since 02.07.2024 (para 4 of the petition) and do not have criminal antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand submits that on the pretext of measurement of the land, the sons have been brutally assaulted and as such, he does not deserve bail.

6. Taking into account the aforesaid facts as also the submission, from the FIR, it is clear that the sons of the petitioner resorted to firing/kudal blow on the informant's son and so far as this petitioner is concerned, there is omnibus allegation of assault as also snatching of the ear ring, he has remained in custody since 02.07.2024, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of bail with conditions.

7. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74105 of 2024(2) dt.22-10-2024 3/3 Magistrate, Banka/Successor Court, Banka in connection with Amarpur P.S. Case No. 325 of 2024 subject to the following conditions:

(i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

(iii) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;

(iv) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U T