This court allowed anticipatory bail to petitioners 2, 3, and 4, finding weak specific allegations against them despite injuries reported. Bail to petitioner 1 was dismissed as withdrawn.
Anticipatory bail granted to petitioner nos. 2, 3, and 4 subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19695 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-188 Year-2020 Thana- PANDAUL District- Madhubani
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR BIHAR
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Adv. Mr.Ravi Prakash For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.A.G. For the Informant : Mr. Zainul Abedin, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
ORAL ORDER
2 05-01-2022 Heard the parties through video conferencing.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Pandaul P.S. Case No. 188 of 2020 registered for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the bail application with regard to petitioner no. 1 namely Aman Prasad is concerned.
Accordingly, the bail application of petitioner no. 1 namely Aman Prasad is dismissed as withdrawn.
So far as petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the F.I.R. there is no specific
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19695 of 2021(2) dt.05-01-2022 2/2
allegation against the petitioners and it is a case of over implication, all the family members have been included in the F.I.R.
Learned A.P.P. as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant strongly opposes the bail application and submits that there are grievous injuries caused.
I have considered the submission, taking into consideration the allegation as levelled in the F.I.R., there is no specific overtact, nor there is any specifically mention of name of the petitioners except of having participated in the said alleged offence, I am inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the above named petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4 namely Abhisek Kumar, Rahul Kumar and Mannu Roy respectively and in the event of arrest they shall be released on bail, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J)
pravinkumar/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner nos. 2, 3, and 4 in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379, and 34 of the IPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
AMAN PRASAD
ABHISEK KUMAR
RAHUL KUMAR
MANNU ROY
THE STATE OF BIHAR
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
