Raman Paswan And ORS v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.2596 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2017 Thana- BITHAN BAZAR District- Samastipur ======================================================
1. Raman Paswan,
2. Vijay Paswan,
3. Ajay Paswan,
4. Arun Paswan, All sons of Suresh Paswan,
5. Suresh Paswan, Son of Tarani Paswan,
6. Indu Devi, Wife of Janardan Paswan,
7. Sukhari Paswan, Son of Janaradan Paswan,
8. Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh Paswan,
9. Gulshan Kumar @ Gulshan Kumar @ Gulshan, Both sons of Raman Paswan,
10. Bhaglu Paswan @ Bablu Paswan, Son of Gangu Paswan, 11.Sailaj Devi, Wife of Suresh Paswan,
12. Aplesh Paswan @ Aklesh Paswan, Son of Harilal Paswan,
13. Sone Lal Paswan, Son of Kaleshwar Paswan,
14. Lalbabu Paswan, Son of Sudho Paswan,
15. Sudho Paswan, Son of Tarani Paswan,
16. Kundan Paswan, Son of Lalbabu Paswan,
17. Bike Paswan @ Veeke Paswan, Son of Sonelal Paswan, All residents of Village- Gangauli, P.S.- Bithan District- Samastipur. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Mira Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :
None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 16-01-2018 Heard the Counsel for the petitioners. No one has appeared on behalf of the State.
Prayer is for grant of anticipatory bail in Bithan P.S. Case No. 115 of 2017 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 449, 379, 354 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Owing to land dispute, it is alleged that 17 accused persons entered into the house and began assaulting the inmates.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2596 of 2018(2) dt.16-01-2018 2/2 Learned counsel submits that indisputably there is land dispute. There is a counter version also. The allegation against some of the petitioners are general and omnibus. Ornamental allegation of committing theft has also been alleged against petitioner no. 2.
However, on going through the F.I.R. and the impugned order, it appears that there is specific allegation of assault attributing to petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 14.
Prayer made on behalf of petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 14 is rejected.
Let remaining petitioners namely petitioner nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17 abovenamed be released on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest or surrender in the court below within four weeks from today on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, Samastipur in Bithan P.S. Case No. 115 of 2017 subject to the condition laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. with further condition that one of the bailors shall be own/close family members of the petitioners. Pankaj/- (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) U T