Allowed

Mahendra Mukhiya and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC21 Sept 2016CR. MISC./37145/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Patna allowed an application for anticipatory bail for five petitioners accused of affray and assault under various IPC sections. The court excluded one petitioner as bail became infructuous due to his arrest and granted interim bail to the rest.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of similar amount.

Mahendra Mukhiya and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Miscellaneous No.37145 of 2016

¶3

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -53 Year- 2016 Thana -SINGHESHWARASHTHAN DistrictMADHEPURA

¶4

======================================================

¶5

Mahendra Mukhiya

¶6

Shiv Nandan Mukhiya @ Shiv Nand Mukhiya Both son of Late Sugdeo Mukhiya.

¶7

Sanoj Mukhiya

¶8

Pramod Mukhiya @ Pramod Kumar Mukhiya Both Sons of Mahendra Mukhiya

¶9

Binod Mukhiya S/o Shiv Nandan Mukhiya @ Shiv Nand Mukhiya All residents of Village- Bhawanipur, P.S- Singheshwar, DistrictMadhepura.

¶10

.... .... Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Bihar

¶13

.... .... Opposite Party

¶14

====================================================== Appearance :

¶15

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Bisheshwar Ram

¶16

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶17

2 21-09-2016 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, at the very outset, has submitted that the petitioner no. 2, namely, Shiv Nandan Mukhiya @ Shiv Nand Mukhiya, has been arrested by the police and this application, so far as it relates to petitioner no. 2 has become infructuous.

¶18

This application stands dismissed as having become infructuous so far as it relates to petitioner no. 2.

¶19

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶20

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37145 of 2016 (2) dt.21-09-2016

¶21

2/3

¶22

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Singheshwar Police Station Case No. 53 of 2016, disclosing offences under Sections 147/148/149/341, 323/324/307/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶23

From the cause title of the application, it is evident that all the petitioners belong to the same family. It also appears from the tenor of the First Information Report that land dispute between the parties is the reason behind the occurrence, which is alleged to have been taken place.

¶24

There are 15 persons named in the First Information Report, including the female members of the same family. They all are said to have assaulted the informant and his family members with dabia (a sharp cutting weapon), iron rod, lathi, etc.

¶25

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that considering the nature of allegation made in the First Information Report, no offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to be made out. He has also submitted that the allegation of snatching of golden chain and ear-rings is ornamental in nature.

¶26

Considering the genesis of occurrence and nature of accusation against these petitioners, this application is allowed.

¶27

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.37145 of 2016 (2) dt.21-09-2016

¶28

3/3

¶29

Let the petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, namely, Mahendra Mukhiya, Sanoj Mukhiya, Pramod Mukhiya @ Pramod Kumar Mukhiya and Binod Mukhiya, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura, in connection with Singheshwar Police Station Case No. 53 of 2016, subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶30

This is subject to the condition that the petitioners shall present themselves before the police/Court, as the case may be, as and when required and in the event of failure on their part to appear before the Court on two consecutive occasions, their bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled.

¶31

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)

¶32

Prabhakar Anand/-

¶33

U √ T √

Mahendra Mukhiya and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Mukhiya and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Arvind Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Lalit Narayan Chaudhary Vs The State Of Bihar

The Managing Director, Bihar Fruit And Vegetable Development Corporation Ltd., Patna and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Raja Kewat Vs The State Of Bihar