Ganesh Singh And ORS v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.2110 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1435 Year- 2016 Thana -BEGUSARAI COMPLAINT CASE DistrictBEGUSARAI ===========================================================
1. Ganesh Singh,
2. Mahesh Singh,
3. Kartik Singh,
4. Abdhu Singh, All Sons of Late Ganga Singh,
5. Pinku Singh, Son of Ram Narayan Singh,
6. Dhananjai Singh, Son of Rajendra Singh.
7. Niraj Singh, Son of Suresh Singh, All resident of Village- Baharadarpur, Ward No. 6, P.S.- Muffasil (Lakho O.P.), District- Begusarai. .... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Nirmala Devi, Wife of Rajendra Ram, resident of village- Bahadarpur, P.S.- Muffasil (Lakho O.P.), District- Begusarai.
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, SPP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 16-08-2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against refusal of the prayer for anticipatory bail by order dated 29.05.2018 in A.B.A. No.1022 of 2018 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Begusarai in connection with Complaint Case No. 1435 of 2016 registered under Sections 147,148,323,379,307 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2110 of 2018 dt.16-08-2018 2/3 Scheduled Tribes Act.
Allegation in the complaint petition is that the appellants abused and assaulted to the complainant, suspecting that she is a Witch and had played Witchcraft. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that husband of the complainant was examined as enquiry witness alongwith another witness and a copy of the deposition of those witnesses has been called for from the learned court below which would reveal that husband of the complainant in reply to the court's question stated that there is land dispute between the parties, for that reason this case was lodged and there is no other reason. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that co-accused-Yogendera Singh has been allowed anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.1617 of 2018.
Considering the entire facts aforesaid, let the appellants, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000 (Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court below where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2110 of 2018 dt.16-08-2018 3/3 Procedure and both bailors shall be resident of territorial jurisdiction of the learned court below and further the appellants shall fully cooperate with the investigation/trial of the case, failing which the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the appellants.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal stands allowed.
(Birendra Kumar, J) Nitesh/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date18.08.2018 Transmission Date 18.08.2018