Dharamvir Yadav v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH Mr.Vinod Gautam Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47009 of 2022(2) dt.08-12-2022 2 08-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the ORAL ORDER State. Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 307, 379 and other allied sections of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act. As per FIR, 19 named accused persons including these petitioners surrounded the husband of the informant on point of pistol and demanded rangdari. On refusal by informant, all the accused persons assaulted informant’s husband as a result of which he sustained head injury. It is further alleged that they also snatched some cash. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. Present case is counter blast of Gogari P. S. Case No. 569 of 2021. Both parties are agnets and in the alleged occurrence both parties sustained injury. Considering the background of the case, let the above named petitioners in the event of their arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47009 of 2022(2) dt.08-12-2022 two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in Gogari P. S. Case No. 604 of 2021, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Navya/- U T (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
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.