RAHUL KUMAR v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Accordingly, this application stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 34, 307, 323, 341, 354B, 379, 504, 506
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named Petitioner No. 2 be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60976 of 2024(5) dt.16-01-2025 Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two…
- Para 99. Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. shashank/- U T (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Judgment
Mukesh Kumar Mehta Son of Umesh Prasad Mehta Village- Bhala Baingra Ps- Khirhar Dist- Madhubani The State of Bihar Versus ... ... Petitioner/s ... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners For the State ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER Mr. Murari Narain Chaudhary, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar, APP : : 5 16-01-2025 Heard learned counsels for the parties.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 341, 354B, 379, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per prosecution case, there is specific accusation of assault against these petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 is alleged to have assaulted the informant by means of iron rod and Petitioner No. 2 is alleged to have assaulted by means of lathi. It is further alleged that thereafter all the accused persons named in the F.I.R., including these petitioners, assaulted informant and her mother and also snatched gold chain, ring and cash worth Rs. 40,000/-. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60976 of 2024(5) dt.16-01-2025
It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that both parties are Pataidars and due to land dispute between the parties, on the alleged date of occurrence, a simple maar-peet took place. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.
On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and injuries caused by Petitioner No. 1, namely Rahul Kumar, by means of iron rod, has been found to be grievous in nature.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and nature of injuries sustained by the injured, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to Petitioner No. 1 is rejected.
So far as Petitioner No. 2 is concerned, consideration the backdrop of the case, nature of accusation, injury caused and clean antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to Petitioner No. 2 is allowed.
Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named Petitioner No. 2 be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60976 of 2024(5) dt.16-01-2025 Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Benipatti (Madhubani), in connection with Khirhar P.S. Case No. 62 of 2024, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Operative part
Accordingly, this application stands disposed of. shashank/- U T (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this application stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 34, 307, 323, 341, 354B, 379, 504, 506; 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.