Santosh Mukhiya vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3290 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 16465 of 2021
          Arising Out of PS Case No.-176 Year-2020 Thana- KHAJAULI District- Madhubani
      ======================================================

1. Santosh Mukhiya, aged about 24 years, Male Son of Gangai Mukhiya.

2. Saroj Mukhiya, aged about 22 years, Male Son of Ram Prakash Mukhiya.

3. Rahul Mukhiya, aged about 20 years, Male Son of Rambhajan Mukhiya.

All are resident of village- Dadha, PS- Khajauli, District- Madhubani

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 12-07-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of

motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioners on

07.07.2021, which was allowed.

3. Heard Mr. Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16465 of 2021 dt.12-07-2021

4. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Khajauli PS Case No. 176 of 2020 dated 30.08.2020, instituted

under Sections 341, 323, 379, 324, 307, 504 and 506/34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

petitioner no. 1 namely, Santosh Mukhiya has been arrested and,

thus, he may be permitted to withdraw the petition on his behalf.

6. In view thereof, the petition on behalf of petitioner

no. 1, namely, Santosh Mukhiya, stands disposed off as withdrawn

and is restricted to petitioners no. 2 and 3, namely, Saroj Mukhiya

and Rahul Mukhiya, respectively.

7. The allegation against the petitioners no. 2 and 3 is

that petitioner no. 2 had taken away Rs. 3,800/- from the counter

of the shop and petitioner no. 3 is said to have given farsa blow on

the head of Dayanand.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

allegation is that the petitioners had come to the shop of the

brother of the informant at 2:30-3:00 AM in the morning. It was

submitted that the same is unbelievable because in a village no

shop would be open at that time. Further, it was submitted that the

allegation is that 10-15 unknown persons along with six named

persons had reached in a drunken state. Learned counsel submitted Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16465 of 2021 dt.12-07-2021

the petitioners no. 2 and 3 have no criminal antecedent. Learned

counsel drew the attention of the Court to the injury report of the

victim Dayanand and submitted that the same are found to be

simple in nature.

9. Learned APP submitted that there is specific

allegation of taking away of Rs. 3,800/- from the counter of the

shop by the petitioner no. 2 whereas against petitioner no. 3 it is

more serious of having inflicted farsa blow on the head and the

injury report discloses that there was sharp cut wound on upper

head in back side and front and middle head and left side upper

head and it was further noted that the patient was in a critical

condition and bleeding due to sharp cut trauma. Learned counsel

submitted that thus, the allegation in the FIR is corroborated by

the injury report.

10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in the

event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six

weeks from today, the petitioner no. 2, namely, Saroj Mukhiya, be

released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/-

(twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each

to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Madhubani District- Madhubani in Khajauli PS Case No. 176 of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16465 of 2021 dt.12-07-2021

2020, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further, and further, (i) that

one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner no. 2,

(ii) that the petitioner no. 2 and the bailors shall execute bond and

give undertaking with regard to good behaviour of the petitioner

no. 2 and (iii) that the petitioner no. 2 shall co-operate with the

police/prosecution and the Court. Any violation of the terms and

conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or failure to co-operate

shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds.

11. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any

violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner no.

2, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take

immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing

to the petitioner no. 2.

12. The prayer for pre-arrest bail of petitioner no. 3,

namely, Rahul Mukhiya, stands rejected.

13. However, in view of submission of learned counsel

for the petitioners, it is observed that if the petitioner no. 3,

namely, Rahul Mukhiya appears before the Court below and prays

for bail, the same shall be considered on its own merits, in

accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the present

order.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16465 of 2021 dt.12-07-2021

14. The petition stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T