Jay Prakash @ Jai Prakash Rai @ Jai Prakash Ray @ Ved Prakash Rai v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.173 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-592 Year-2023 Thana- SHAHPUR PATORI District- Samastipur ====================================================== Jay Prakash @ Jai Prakash Rai @ Jai Prakash Ray @ Ved Prakash Rai S/O Late Ram Pratap Ray R/O Village- Bhaua, P.S- Patori @ Patory, Distt.- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Manish Gandhi For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Patori P.S. Case No. 592/2023 dated 19.09.2023 registered for the offences punishable u/ss 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 354, 448, 379, 380, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner and the co-accused persons armed with deadly weapons surrounded the house of the informant and started abusing. On the order of the co-accused Jagarnath Ray and the co-accused Sushila Devi, the petitioner fired but it missed. Thereafter, the petitioner caught hold of the hair of the informant and slammed her on the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.173 of 2024(2) dt.01-02-2024 2/2 ground. The co-accused Sushila Devi along with the co-accused Khushboo Kumari, took Rs. 50,000 from almirah. Further, the co-accused Nitish Kumar snatched a golden chain worth Rs. 60,000/- from the neck of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. There is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the above named petitioner, in the event of his arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Samastipur in connection with Patori P.S. Case No. 592/2023, subject to conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T