Oral order granting anticipatory bail to four petitioners except the second one. The court rejected bail for Ranjeet Yadav in a case involving assault allegations but granted it to others subject to bail bond and conditions.
Released on bail with sureties within four weeks of receipt; Petitioner no.2 denied anticipatory bail.
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.59939 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2020 Thana- PANDAUL District- Madhubani
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Hriday Narayan Harshit, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER
2 06-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
Let the defect(s), if any, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks.
The petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection with Pandaul P.S. Case No. 34 of 2020 under sections 147, 341, 323, 307, 373, 504 & 506, 411 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that the petitioners came armed variously and the allegation is that one Raman Yadav assaulted the informant by 'Farsa' on his hand causing injury. The further allegation against all the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59939 of 2022(2) dt.06-02-2023 2/2
accused persons is of assault and also on petitioner no.2 Ranjeet Yadav of giving 'Farsa' blow to the cousin brother of the informant. Accordingly, the FIR.
Considering the allegation that has come against the petitioner no.2, Ranjeet Yadav, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail which is accordingly rejected.
So far as the other petitioners are concerned, omnibus allegation is against all of them, FIR has been lodged and ultimately they will have to face the trial, this Court is inclined to grant them the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Let the petitioners (except the petitioner no.2) be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, in connection with Pandaul P.S. Case No. 34 of 2020 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Ravi/-
U T
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners in connection with the pending FIR.
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Petitioner no.2 Ranjeet Yadav.
Whether the defect(s) pointed out should be removed.
SITA RAM YADAV
RANJEET YADAV
JAMUN YADAV
VIJAY YADAV
GANGA YADAV
STATE
RAJIV ROY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
