Raushan Kumar vs State Of Bihar

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

Heard Mr. Yugal Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Md. Arif, learned Additional Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the

‘APP’) for the State.

The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Town PS Case No. 302 of 2020 (Sikandanpur OP) dated 19.05.2020, instituted under Sections

147, 148, 149, 188, 269, 353, 307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation against the petitioners, who are amongst twenty-three known persons and fifty unknown persons, is that they had created nuisance

and obstructed the traffic in support of one Chandeshwar Mahto, whose son had been injured, and who had kept him on the road on a thela, protesting

police inaction. It is further alleged that all the accused persons had obstructed the police in clearing the jam and restoring traffic movement and had

also violated the norms of social distancing.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that only on suspicion the petitioners have been named, that too, without any indication as to how they

were identified. Further, it was submitted that no overt act has been alleged against the petitioners and only on omnibus allegation of having obstructing

the traffic and misbehaviour with the police and further, not following the norms of social distancing, they have been made accused. Learned counsel

submitted that they have no concern with Chandeshwar Mahto, who was protesting and being from the neighbourhood, had gone there to witness the

incident and have been wrongly made accused. Further, it was submitted that the petitioners have no other criminal antecedent.

Learned APP submitted that the petitioners had obstructed the police in discharge of their duty and had also violated the norms of social distancing.

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 petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five

thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, in Town PS Case

No. 302 of 2020 (Sikandarpur OP), subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further (i) that

one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners, (ii) that the petitioners and the bailors shall execute bond and give undertaking with regard

to good behaviour of the petitioners, and (iii) that the petitioners shall cooperate with the Court and police/prosecution. Any violation of the terms and

conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or failure to cooperate shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds.

It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioners, to the notice of the Court

concerned, which shall take immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

The petition stands disposed off in the aforementioned terms.