Bhuppi Yadav @ Bhupendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88970 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2024 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== 1.

Bhuppi Yadav @ Bhupendra Yadav S/o Late Shivnarayn Yadav @ Shivu Yadav R/o Village- Vrindawan, Ward No. 08, P.S.- Murliganj, DistrictMadhepura 2.

Ajay Yadav S/o Bhuppi Yadav @ Bhupendra Yadav R/o Village- Vrindawan, Ward No. 08, P.S.- Murliganj, District- Madhepura 3.

Vijay Yadav @ Muso Yadav S/o Bhuppi Yadav @ Bhupendra Yadav R/o Village- Vrindawan, Ward No. 08, P.S.- Murliganj, District- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Kumari Rashmi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 384, 427, 506, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per prosecution case, on 27.02.2024 at about 5 PM, while informant was going to Bahiyar on his tractor, on the way, these petitioners stopped the tractor and demanded ransom of Rs. 50,000/- and upon denial by the informant, on the order of petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 2 set fire on the back tyre of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88970 of 2024(2) dt.20-01-2025 2/3 the tractor, worth Rs. 45,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case due to village politics. As a matter of fact, informant was illegally excavating and selling sand from the Government land which was adjacent to the land of petitioners and when petitioners objected, informant lodged this false and concocted case against the petitioners. It is further submitted that thought there is allegation of demand of ransom but no money was delivered. Petitioners claim clean antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this anticipatory bail is allowed and it is ordered that let the above named petitioners in the event of their arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Madhepura in connection with Murliganj P. S. Case No. 73 of 2024, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88970 of 2024(2) dt.20-01-2025 3/3 the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T