Patna High Court
Bhaiya Ram Singh @ Bhaiya Ram Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 8 April, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No 1687 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2020 Thana- SC/ST District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. BHAIYA RAM SINGH @ BHAIYA RAM YADAV Son of Late Mukhram
Singh Resident of Village - Dahiyari, P.S.- Karakat (Godari), District -
Rohtas.
2. Srikant Yadav Son of Late Sigasan Yadav Resident of Village - Dahiyari,
P.S.- Karakat (Godari), District - Rohtas.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
For the Appellant/s : Mr Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr Advocate with
M/s Mithilesh Kr Singh, Bhaskar Shankar, Advs
For the Respondent/s : Mr Binay Krishna, Special PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 08-04-2021
This case has been taken up for consideration today
through Video Conferencing.
Heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and the
learned Special PP for the State.
2 The appellants have preferred the present Appeal
under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity, SC/ST Act)
against the refusal of their prayer for regular bail vide order dated
18.01.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge I -cum- Special
Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in a case registered under Sections 147,
148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 504 of Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of
Arms Act and Sections 3 (1) (r)/3 (2) (Va) of SC/ST Act in
connection with Dehri Police Station (for brevity, PS) Case No 27
of 2020.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1687 of 2021 dt.08-04-2021
3 While the informant was on way, appellant No 1 has
allegedly abused and assaulted by lathi. All other co-accused
persons, thereafter, have also assaulted him and his family
members, as per the prosecution case.
4 Appellants' senior counsel submits that this is a case
of false implication after a free fight between the parties in which
both sides have sustained injuries. Injuries, sustained by the
accused side, have been brought on record by way of Annexure 4.
It is further submitted that appellant No 1 has no criminal
antecedent and he is in custody since 23.12.2020. Appellant No 2
is also in custody since the same date. He, however, has earlier
been implicated in one more case by the same prosecution party.
From these facts, it is evident that there is subsisting dispute
between the parties leading to false implication in this case.
5 Learned Special PP for the State has opposed the
prayer for bail.
6 In my opinion, a case for grant of regular bail is made
out. The impugned order dated 18.01.2021 requires interference
by this Court, which is, accordingly, set aside.
7 Considering the rival submissions, this appeal is
allowed. The impugned order dated 18.01.2021 passed by
Additional Sessions Judge I -cum- Special Judge, Rohtas at
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1687 of 2021 dt.08-04-2021
Sasaram in connection with Dehri PS Case No 27 of 2020 is set
aside.
8 Let the appellants above named be released on bail on
each of them furnishing bonds of Rs 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge I -cum- Special Judge,
Rohtas at Sasaram in Dehri PS Case No 27 of 2020 subject to the
following conditions:
(1) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the
appellants who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how
he is related with the appellants. The bailor will also undertake to
inform the Court if there is any change in the address of the
appellants.
(2) That the appellants will be well represented on each
date and if they fail to do so on two consecutive dates, their bail
will be liable to be cancelled.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 12.04.2021
Transmission Date 12.04.2021
