Ramesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85839 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2019 Thana- MEHANDIA District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.

Ramesh Yadav, Son of Brij Bihari Yadav Resident of Village- Maraila, P.S.- Mahendia, District- Arwal.

2.

Mithlesh Yadav, Son of Brij Bihari Yadav Resident of Village- Maraila, P.S.- Mahendia, District- Arwal.

3.

Nitish Kumar, Son of Umesh Yadav Resident of Village- Maraila, P.S.- Mahendia, District- Arwal.

4.

Rinku Devi, Wife of Dhanesh Yadav Resident of Village- Maraila, P.S.- Mahendia, District- Arwal.

5.

Munna Devi, Wife of Umesh Yadav Resident of Village- Maraila, P.S.- Mahendia, District- Arwal.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Santosh Chandra Bhaskar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 24-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Mehendia P.S. Case No.95 of 2019, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioners as per the first information report lodged by the informant, Radha Devi that on the date of occurrence, i.e., in the night of 04.10.2019 at about

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85839 of 2019(3) dt.24-02-2020 2/3 7:30 P.M. the petitioners entered into the house of the informant and abused and assaulted her and when her neighbour, Jitendra Kumar, came to save the informant, the petitioner No.1, 2 and 3 assaulted him by means of iron rod on his head. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case due to previous enmity and land dispute. Learned counsel further submits that both the parties are agnates and referring to Annexure-2 submits that injuries caused to the informant and her neighbour, Jitendra Kumar, have been found to be simple in nature.

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that both the parties are agnates and there is land dispute between them and injuries caused to the victims are simple in nature, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Accordingly, all the petitioners, above named, are directed to surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today and in the event of surrender by them, they shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Court below upon furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85839 of 2019(3) dt.24-02-2020 3/3 of learned C.J.M., Arwal, District-Arwal, in connection with Mehendia P.S. Case No.95 of 2019 subject to the condition as mentioned under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) sanjeev/- U T