Patna High Court – Orders
Dhayani Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 16 April, 2025
Author: Rajesh Kumar Verma
Bench: Rajesh Kumar Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60851 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-178 Year-2022 Thana- ARER District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. DHAYANI YADAV SON OF JAGDISH YADAV R/V- KUSMAUL, P.S.-
BENIPATTI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI
2. ARUN YADAV SON OF JUGESHWAR YADAV R/V- KUSMAUL, P.S.-
BENIPATTI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI
3. SANJAY YADAV SON OF JUGESHWAR YADAV R/V- KUSMAUL, P.S.-
BENIPATTI, DISTT.- MADHUBANI
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 16-04-2025
Heard Mr. Ashad, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Arer P.S. Case No. 178 of 2022, F.I.R. dated
04.11.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,
324, 307, 448, 452, 380, 354(B), 384, 427, 504, 506, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. According to prosecution case, the petitioners
assaulted the informant and his family by means of lathi, danda,
outraged the modesty of the mother and aunt of the informant
and took jewelleries and money from his family members.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60851 of 2024(3) dt.16-04-2025
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been
implicated in the present case. It appears from the FIR that all
the petitioners are named in the FIR but from the bare perusal of
the FIR there is no specific allegation of assault or overt act
against the petitioners and there is case and counter case.
Although the informant received injury but the injury report
suggest that injury is simple in nature caused by hard and blunt
substance.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
petitioners have clean antecedent and there is no specific
allegation against these petitioners and injury is simple in
nature, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of arrest or
surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days
from the date of receipt of the order, 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 the
learned S.D.J.M. Benipatti, Madhubani in connection with Arer
P.S. Case No. 178 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure /
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60851 of 2024(3) dt.16-04-2025
3/3
Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and
with other following conditions:-
i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link