Karu Pandey @ Kartik Pandey @ Kartik Kumar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3428 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2023 Thana- MANIHARI District- Katihar ====================================================== Karu Pandey @ Kartik Pandey @ Kartik Kumar Pandey S/O Kundan Kumar Pandey, R/O Village- Dilarpur, P.S- Manihari, Distt.- Katihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vinay Ranjan, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Teerthankar, Advocate Mr. Ankit Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Zainul Abedin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-02-2024 Heard Mr. Vinay Ranjan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Zainul Abedin, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2.

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Manihari PS Case No. 109 of 2023, FIR dated 25.05.2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 341, 379, 504, 506 and 354 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

According to prosecution case, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons was plowing the informant's land and upon protest, they assaulted the informant with fists and slaps and also threatened her with dire consequences. It is further alleged that they also assaulted her husband with

2/4 bamboo stick and iron-rod due to which he sustained injury on his head. It is also alleged that one Anand Pandey attempted to outrage the modesty of the informant and Divakar Pandey and Umanath Pandey snatched her golden chain and also took her money.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is case and counter-case between the parties and upon perusal of the FIR, it appears that there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt act attributed against the petitioner, rather the specific allegation of assault is attributed against the co-accused persons namely, Bimal Pandey and Shivdutt Pandey, who have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.11.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 71636 of 2023. 5.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. 6.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has clean antecedent, there is no specific allegation of assault or overt act against him and similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, let the petitioner, above

3/4 named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Katihar, where the case is pending in connection with Manihari PS Case No. 109 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and also the following conditions:

(i). Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

(ii). If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(iii). And further condition that the Court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the Court below shall take step for

4/4 cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Shahnawaz/- U T