Bholanath Pandit v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90229 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-112 Year-2024 Thana- MAHKAR District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Bholanath Pandit S/o Late Kapil Deo Pandit R/o vill - Chatani, P.S. - Mahkar, Distt.- Gaya 2.

Vijay Lakshmi Pandit @ Vijay Lakshmi Kumari Wife of Bholanath Pandit R/o vill - Chatani, P.S. - Mahkar, Distt.- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vishwa Ranjan Choudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Yogendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 29-01-2025 1.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2.

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Mahkar PS case no. 112 of 2024, disclosing offences punishable under Section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

The prosecution story, as per the First Information Report, is that on 02.06.2024 in the afternoon, the informant was having some discussion regarding settlement of account with his uncle Bholanath Pandit i.e. petitioner no. 1 and his aunt Vijayalakshmi Pandit i.e. petitioner no. 2. In the meantime, petitioners along with other relatives assaulted the informant

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90229 of 2024(2) dt.29-01-2025 2/3 with iron rod, as a result of which, he sustained head injury and he also sustained injuries near his eyes and hand. 4.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are own uncle and aunt of the informant and there was long standing disputes between them. Learned counsel further submits that though the injury caused to the informant has been discussed in the impugned order but the nature of injury has not been mentioned as grievous. He also submits that both the parties being family members have settled their dispute and filed joint compromise petition, which would be evident from the impugned order itself.

5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the fact that both parties are closely related, the nature of injury has not been described as grievous in the impugned order, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.

This application is, accordingly, allowed.

7.

Let petitioners, abovenamed, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks, be released 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 learned J.M. 1st class, Gaya in connection with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90229 of 2024(2) dt.29-01-2025 3/3 Mahkar PS case no. 112 of 2024, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) rinkee/- U T