SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Amod Rai @ Amod Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 16 March, 2020

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-275 Year-2019 Thana- LALGANJ District- Vaishali

1. Amod Rai @ Amod Kumar, Male, aged about 50 years.

2. Santosh Rai, Male, aged about 35 years.

3. Manoj Rai, Male, aged about 55 years.

4. Pramod Rai, Male, aged about 40 years.

All Sons of Ram Babu Rai.

5. Laloo Rai @ Laloo Kumar, Male, aged about 25 years, Son of Tribhuwan

6. Tribhuwan Rai, Male, aged about 71 years, Son of Chaturi Rai.

All Resident of Village- Agarpur, Ward No. 9, P.S.- Lalganj, District-

… … Petitioner/s
The State of Bihar

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baleshwar Kamat, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP

Date : 16-03-2020

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Lalganj PS Case No. 275 of 2019 dated 06.08.2019 instituted

under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 354B, 504, 379 and 506/34 of

the Indian Penal Code.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69724 of 2019 dt.16-03-2020

3. The allegation against the petitioners is of assault on

the informant and her son.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it

was a family dispute as the informant is the daughter-in-law of the

brother of petitioner no. 6 and the petitioners no. 1 to 4 are sons of

another brother whereas petitioner no. 5 is the son of petitioner no.

6. It was submitted that all the parties live in the same ancestral

house, though in different demarcated quarters after partition and

due to some land related dispute, the incident took place which

was a simple skirmish in which both sides have sustained minor

injuries. It was submitted that the informant and her husband, who

is the son of the brother of the petitioner no. 6, had sold land

which was not allotted in their share due to which some of the

petitioners have filed title suit for cancellation of the said sale

deed. Learned counsel submitted that the injury on the side of the

petitioners is more grievous than have been found on the

informant and her son in the present case. It was submitted that

the petitioners no. 3 and 6 have no other criminal antecedent. It

was submitted that though the allegation against petitioner no. 6 is

of inflicting blow by Farsa on the arm but only lacerated wound

has been found on the right elbow and left hand above wrist and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69724 of 2019 dt.16-03-2020

the doctor has opined that the same has been cause by hard blunt

substance and are simple in nature.

5. Learned APP submitted that the parties have indulged

in skirmish and injuries have been inflicted by them. It was further

submitted that the petitioner no. 5 has two other cases against him,

including under Sections 498A, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and

3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as also under serious sections of

the Indian Penal Code and the Bihar Excise Act whereas the

petitioners no. 1, 2 and 4 are involved in a case under Sections

379, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. 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 no. 3 and 6 namely, Manoj Rai

and Tribhuwan Rai, 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, Hajipur in Lalganj PS Case No. 275 of 2019,

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

of Criminal Procedure, 1973. One of the bailors shall be a close

relative of the petitioners no. 3 and 6. The petitioners and the

bailors shall execute bond with regard to good behaviour of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69724 of 2019 dt.16-03-2020

petitioners no. 3 and 6. The petitioners no. 3 and 6 shall also give

an undertaking to the Court that they shall not indulge in any

criminal activity. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the

bonds or the undertaking shall lead to cancellation of their bail


7. With regard to petitioners no. 1, 2, 4 and 5, the Court

is not inclined to grant them anticipatory bail.

8. Accordingly, their prayer stands rejected.

9. The application stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation