Prakash Chaudhary @ Prakash Pasi v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.58675 of 2018 Arising Out of Complaint Case No.-213 Year-2018 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE DistrictJamui ====================================================== Prakash Chaudhary @ Prakash Pasi, Son of Late Maho Chaudhary, resident of Aliganj, P.S. Chandradeep, District- Jamui. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Nandlal Mahato, S/o Late Bhagawan Mahato. resident of Darkha, P.S. Sikandra, District- Jamui.

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Lalan Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-09-2018 Sri Satya Prakash Parasar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that inadvertently in paragraph- 1 at page-3 of the petition, provision of Section 352 has been added instead of Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the learned Masigtrate has taken cognizance under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and, as such, he requests for allowing him for making correction.

The prayer is allowed.

It may be done in course of the day.

The sole petitioner, apprehending his arrest in Complaint Case No. 213(c) of 2018, in which cognizance order has been passed under Sections 392, 341/34 of the Indian Penal

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58675 of 2018(2) dt.20-09-2018 2/3 Code, has prayed for grant of bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present complaint petition is a counter blast to the case lodged by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to Annexure-2 of the petition to show that earlier, the petitioner was an informant in Jamui SC/ST P.S. Case No. 39 of 2014, in which the complainant of the present case was arrayed as accused no. 1. Thereafter, the present complaint petition has been filed by the complainant alleging therein, as if, the petitioner along with others have committed robbery.

Besides hearing, I have perused the material available on record and after going through the same, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for extending the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, let the petitioner, namely, Prakash Chaudhry @ Prakash Pasi be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Sri M.K. Pandey, learned J.M. 1st Class, Jamui/ concerned court in

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.58675 of 2018(2) dt.20-09-2018 3/3 connection with Complaint Case No. 213(c) of 2018, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) nawalkrs/- U T