Haricharan Yadav v. Rikabganj
Case at a glance
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Outcome
Bail granted
Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 147, 149, 307, 323, 324, 341, 379, 427, 436
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Judgment
The State of Bihar ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s For the State ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY Mr. Md Fazle Karim, Advocate Mrs. Nirmala Kumari, APP ... ... Opposite Party/s : : 3 12-05-2025 Heard Mr. Md. Fazle Karim, learned counsel for ORAL ORDER the petitioners and learned APP representing the State.
The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with K. Nagar P.S. Case No. 69 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 427 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code, lodged on 05.02.2024 by the informant, Pradeep Yadav.
As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that the accused persons becoming aggressor, arrived and assaulted the informant with ‘khanti’ as the family members arrived, they too were assaulted. This led to the F.I.R.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they are couple have also lodged F.I.R., it is a matter of case and counter case, the injuries are simple in nature, are neighbour and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11023 of 2025(3) dt.12-05-2025 without accepting the allegation or outcome of the petition the petitioner no.1 intends to pay Rs.5,000/- each to the injured persons towards treatment to Pradeep Yadav, Dilip Yadav and Santosh Kumar Yadav (totaling Rs.15,000/-) by Demand Draft issued by the local branch of the State Bank of India.
Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail submitting that allegation of assault is against the petitioners and the petitioner no.1 has criminal antecedent.
Taking into account the aforesaid facts, submissions put forward by the parties as also that the injures have been found to be simple in nature, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- each to the injured persons towards treatment namely Pradeep Yadav, Dilip Yadav and Santosh Kumar Yadav (totaling Rs.15,000/-) by Demand Draft issued by the local branch of the State Bank of India and the receipt has to be submitted before the Trial Court.
Operative part
Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of 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, Purnea, in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11023 of 2025(3) dt.12-05-2025 connection with K. Nagar P.S. Case No. 69 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C., as also with the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioners shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds; (iv) the petitioners shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds. vinayak/- U T (Rajiv Roy, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 147, 149, 307, 323, 324, 341, 379, 427, 436; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2).
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.