Ramesh Rai @ Ramesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 341, 342, 353, 354, 504, 506
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 99. So far as petitioner Nos.1 (Ramesh Rai), 2 (Rajesh Rai) and 6 (Manjay Kumar) are concerned, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 6 as their antecedent is not clean, therefore the bail application of the…
Judgment
Manjay Kumar @ Manjay Rai Son of Hullas Ray R/O Vill.- Baliya Indrajeet, P.s.- Bochahan, Dist.- Muzaffarpur. The State of Bihar Versus ... ... Petitioner/s ... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN Mr. Raju Kumar, Adv. Mr. Parmanand Kumar, APP ORAL ORDER 2 12-11-2024 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Learned APP for the State.
The petitioners are apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable in connection with Bochaha P. S. Case No.131 of 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 324, 307, 353, 354, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75875 of 2024(2) dt.12-11-2024 against 8 named and 15-17 unknown accused persons including the petitioners against whom there is allegation of abusing and scuffling with the informant and police party due to which injury took place.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. He submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated due to village politics and land dispute. He further submits that the allegation is general and omnibus in nature.
Learned Counsel further submits that the petitioner due to land dispute, the scuffling took place between both the parties and in this scuffling, police party has also been injured.
6. Learned Counsel also submits that petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 5 have clean antecedent whereas petitioner No.1, 2 and 6 have no clean antecedent.
Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and direct allegation of assault against them.
In the present facts and circumstances, let the above named petitioner Nos.3 (Sajan Kumar), 4 (Pankaj Kumar) and 5 (Pawan Kumar) be released on anticipatory bail as having clean antecedent, in the event of arrest or surrender before the Court Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75875 of 2024(2) dt.12-11-2024 below within a period of 4 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of A.C.J.M.- 14, (East), Muzaffarpur in connection with Bochaha P. S. Case No.131 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
So far as petitioner Nos.1 (Ramesh Rai), 2 (Rajesh Rai) and 6 (Manjay Kumar) are concerned, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 6 as their antecedent is not clean, therefore the bail application of the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 6 is hereby rejected.
However, Trial Court is directed to consider the regular bail application of the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 6, if they surrender within 4 weeks from today and pray for regular bail, then Trial Court shall pass order without being prejudice of the present order preferably on the same day. (Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T
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.