IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.15833 of 2010
1. NILESH YADAV SON OF ARVIND YADAV
2. MITHILESH YADAV SON OF RAJU YADAV @ RAJENDRA
YADAV
3. MANOHAR YADAV SON OF LATE RAJ KISHOR YADAV,
ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE LUXMIPUR GIRDHAR,
P.S. RUPOULI ( Akharpur) DISTRICT PURNIA
--- PETITIONERS.
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR--OPP. PARTY.
-----------
For the petitioner : Mr. Arun Pd. Ambastha, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Dinesh Singh, A. P. P.
—-
3/ 30-06-2010 Heard the parties.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
instituted for offences under section 341, 323, 307, 504/
34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under section 3(1) (iv)
of SC/ST ( P.O.A.) Act. According to the prosecution case
the accused persons are alleged to have cultivated certain
lands, which were allotted to the informant by issuing
certain red-cards under the provision of Bihar Land
Reforms ( Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of
Surplus Land ) Act, 1961.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that as a matter of fact prior to lodging of the
present F.I.R. vide Annexure-1, one Nawal Kishore Singh,
who happens to be the family member of the petitioners,
had moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6090 of 2009.
By order dated 14.05.2009 while disposing of the aforesaid
writ petition it was directed that the land holders shall not
2
be dispossessed from the land in question till disposal of
the Revision Case No. 7 of 2008. In that view of the matter
it is claimed that petitioners were having their possession
over the land in question and allegation of dispossession of
the informant from the land in question is absolutely false
and wrong. It is also submitted that in view of dispute of
bonafide possession of the land in question the provisions
under section 3 (1) (iv) of the SC/ST ( P.O.A. ) Act are not
applicable in the present case and, therefore, the present
petition under section 438 Cr. P.C. is maintainable.
It is also submitted that even according to the
prosecution case offence under section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code is not attracted against the petitioners.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, in the event of arrest or surrender in the court below
within a period of four weeks from today, let the above
named petitioners be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial
Magistrate at Purnia in connection with Rupouli (
Akbarpur) P.S. Case No. 73 of 2009, subject to conditions
laid down under section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. and subject to
further conditions that :
(A) one of the bailors must be government
servant or close family members of the
3
petitioners who will file an affidavit in the
court below showing his/her relationship
with the petitioners,
(B) if the petitioners are found involved in
same and similar nature of cases in
future, then in that case the informant/
prosecution shall be at liberty to file a
petition for cancellation of the bail of the
petitioners, and if such a petition is filed,
the court below would be obliged to
dispose of the same in accordance with
law after giving opportunity of hearing to
all concerned.
BTiwary ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J)