Ramesh Yadav @ Ramesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP ORAL ORDER 2 28-07-2023 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Dehri P.S. Case No. 474 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 337, 353, 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4(1)(a) and 21(1) of D.E. Act and Section 40(1) of B.M. Act and Sections 33, 41 and 42 of Forest Act.

It is alleged that the petitioner is found indulged in running an illegal crusher machine, which was recovered during the course of raid by the police personnels. Some vehicles and stone chips were also recovered from the place of occurrence. The apprehended persons, village chaukidar as well as some Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36034 of 2023(2) dt.28-07-2023 local persons disclosed the name of various accused persons including the petitioner.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is neither owner of the crusher machine nor he is anyhow related to the same. That apart, the vehicles which have been recovered at the time of raid that do not belong to the petitioner. He next submits that save and except the disclosure made by the chaukidar and local people, there is no iota of evidence suggesting the complicity of the petitioner in the present crime. He further submits that though the FIR was instituted way back in the year 2016, but as he had been living in Jharkhand for his livelihood, he was not even aware with regard to the present case and, as such, delay has occurred. While discussing the reasons for false implication, he submits that only because of he being resident of village Gopi Bigha, his name has been implicated in this case along with other residents of the locality. He also submits that falsity of the case is also evident from the case that FIR has been instituted against 20 named persons and 50-60 unknown persons.

On the other hand, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the pre-arrest bail application of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36034 of 2023(2) dt.28-07-2023 petitioner and submits that the petitioner is carrying two criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application.

Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that save and except the disclosure made by the chaukidar of the village, there is no other material and further the petitioner has no connection with either the crusher machines or the vehicles seized at the place of occurrence, let the above named petitioner, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dehri, Rohtas in connection with Dehri P.S. Case No. 474 of 2016, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. with the further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner. shivank/- U T (Harish Kumar, J)