AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 284 wordsPrabhat Kumar Jha, J.—Heard both sides.
Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in Samastipur (SC/ST) P.S. Case No. 08/2014 for the offences allegedly committed under sections 341, 323, 385, 379, 504, 506/34 I.P.C. & 3(i)(x) SC/ST (POA) Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and all the offences are bailable except one u/s 379 of the I.P.C.
The present case is a counter blast of Patori P.S. Case No. 26/2014 registered on 29.01.2014 but the present case was lodged after eight years of the occurrence. Moreover, the case has been compromised. Thus, the petitioners be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Learned Additional P.P. vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that in view of the provisions contained u/s 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, the anticipatory bail is not bailable.
Perused the records and it appears that the occurrence took place on 29.01.2014 and the present F.I.R. was lodged on 06.2.2014. Prior to the present case, the present Mukhiya lodged Patori P.S. Case No. 26/2014. There is a case and counter case also and the case is compromised.
Considering the facts, petitioners deserve anticipatory bail and accordingly, their prayer is allowed.
Petitioners Arbind Kumar Sah and Surendra Sah are directed to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender in the court below within a period of four weeks from the receipt/production of this order, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand) with two sureties each of a like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in SC/ST P.S. Case No. 08/2014, subject to condition laid down u/s 438(2) of Cr. P.C.
