Rajesh Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8992 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-128 Year-2023 Thana- LODIPUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== 1.
Rajesh Kumar Yadav, S/o Raghu Nandan Yadav, 2.
Prabin Yadav @ Praveen Kumar @ Yadav, S/o Susil Yadav @ Sushil Yadav, 3.
Rohit Yadav @ Aditya Raj, S/o Banbari Yadav @ Banwari Yadav, 4.
Amit Yadav @ Jack Arya @ Jack Samar Arya, S/o Banbari Yadav @ Banwari Yadav All are residents of village- Naya Tola Agarpur, P.S.- Lodipur, Dist.- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Dr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Md. Aslam Ansari, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 21-06-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
02. In the present case, the petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Lodipur P.S. Case No. 128 of 2023 registered for the alleged offence under Sections 341, 342, 323, 307, 354(B), 379, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
03. As per prosecution case, the petitioners and other co-accused persons assaulted the brother of the informant and confined the informant in their house and also sexually assaulted her. When the parents of the informant tried to rescue her, the coaccused Banbari Yadav and Sushil Yadav assaulted the mother of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8992 of 2024(3) dt.21-06-2024 2/3 the informant, causing injury on her head.
04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. The whole occurrence took place in the background of land dispute as the co-accused Banbari Yadav and Sushil Yadavand also the petitioner no.1 had purchased land from the family of the original landlord, whereas the mother of the informant also purchased a piece of land from the maternal grandson of the original landlord. For this reason, he wanted the petitioners to vacate the land, for which he lodged a number of cases against them with similar allegations. Learned counsel further submits that no occurrence as alleged has ever taken place. From the FIR, it is apparent that all the family members of the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. It is also surprising that no motive has been mentioned in the FIR lodged by the informant. Whole occurrence took place in day time, but there appears no eye witness. Moreover, the injury report of the injured mother of the informant shows simple injuries.
05. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail. Learned APP submits that the petitioners are accused in altogether 09 cases and appear to be habitual offender.
06. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8992 of 2024(3) dt.21-06-2024 3/3 background of land dispute and the fact that other cases are also stated to be lodged by the informant or her family members and further considering the probability of false implication, let the petitioners above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the court concerned within a period of eight weeks from today, be released on bail, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st Class/concerned court in connection with Lodipur P.S. Case No. 128 of 2023, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and other following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners.
(ii) The petitioners will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned trial court.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J) V.K.Pandey/- U T