1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

(CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION)

Cr. Misc. No. …………………. of 2023

In the matter of an application

under Section 438 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure ;

And

In the matter of :

1. Rajan Kumar, aged about 50years, Gender- Male,S/O Arjun

kumar, resident of Village- Parsauni,ward no8 P.S. Biskki,

District- Madhubani

.... Petitioners

Versus

1,The State of Bihar ….… Opposite Party

2.Chinki Kumari W/O Rajan Kumar,D/O/Sri Arun kumar Lal

Karn @Arun Kuamr .At present address R/O, village
Murethi.P.S.Jale Dist. Darbhanga
 2

To,

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, the Chief

Justice of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna

and his Companion Justices of the said Hon’ble Court.

The humble petition on behalf

of above-named petitioner:

Most Respectfully Sheweth :

1. That this is an application on behalf of above-named

petitioners for grant of his Anticipatory Bail who is

apprehending his arrest in connection with Madhubani

( Benipatti) complaint case no 268/ 2023 dated-

17.07.2023 for the alleged offences punishable under

Sections 379,498(a)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

 3

2. That the petitioner has not moved earlier for grant of his

anticipatory bail or regular bail in this matter before this

Hon’ble High Court and no case is pending either before

learned court below or Hon,ble Supreme court for grant of

his anticipatory bail or regular bail .

3. That the petitioner has got no Criminal antecedent except

the present case.

4. That the prosecution case in short is that the coplainant

got married with Ranjan kumar on 22.11.219 according to

Hinhu Rites and customs.Father of complainant spent

around ten lacs rupee for marriage. informant Santosh

Kumar Mandal gave a written report to S.H.O. Supaul on

21.03.2020 alleging therein that on 17.03.2020 he was

seating in his house and discussed to vote in favour of

Kamru Mishra for the post of Mukhiya in the mean time

Surendra Yadav, Dilip Yadav, Mahendra Ray, Lakhan Ray,

Madan Ray, Uriya Devi, Ranjit Paswan, Bechan Paswan,

Umesh Yadav, Baleshwar Yadav come for cast vote in

favoafter marriage she started staying at Mumbai along

with her husband ,her father in law and mother-in-

 4

law .After passage of time they began to torture the

complainant to registered the paternal property in favour

of Rajan kumar as c ,as cop ur of Surendra Yadav for the

post of Mukhiya and threatened that if you will not vote in

favour of him then you ran away from where after leaving

the house. It has further alleged that during conversation

Dilip Ray assaulted to the informant by feast and leg due

to that informant fallen down on earth, after seeing this

occurrence, father of the informant came there to save

him then Madan Ray assaulted him by lathi on his left

hand due to that got fractured, thereafter wife of the

informant came to save him then Mahendra Ray assaulted

by feast and leg and dragged her by catching her hair,

then Pratima Kumari came to save them Lakhan Ray

assaulted by feast and leg and Madan Ray taken away

iron box in which Rs.5,000/- cash was kept. It has further

alleged that Uriya Devi snatched silver locket from her

neck and Ranjit Paswan snatched nose ring costing of

Rs.2,000/-. It has further alleged that the accused person

threatened to the informant.

 5

A certified copy of the F.I.R. is annexed

herewith and marked as Annexure-1 to

this petition.

5. That the petitioners are quite innocent committed no

offence as alleged by the informant in the First

Information Report and name of the petitioners have been

given due to local village politics.

6. That the petitioners denied the entire prosecution story no

such occurrence has taken place as alleged by the

informant in the First Information Report.

7. That it is also pertinent to mention here that from perusal

of First Information Report, it is very much clear that

alleged occurrence took place due to local police and one

of the petitioner was contesting the election for the post

of Mukhiya and only with a view to disturb the petitioners

present case has been filed by the informant against the

petitioners.

8. That from perusal of First Information Report it appears

that the informant has lodge the case only on the basis of
 6

false and fabricated ground because the way informant

has discussed in the prosecution story also create doubt

on the prosecution story.

9. That the petitioners are an innocent person and have

never involved in such type of activity and due to

Panchayat Election present case has been lodged against

the petitioners.

10. That it is also pertinent to mention here that from perusal

of First Information Report, it is very much clear that non

have sustained injury on vital part of body and allegation

leveled against the petitioners are general and omnibus.

11. That from perusal of impugned order it appears that

during the course of hearing the learned Court has

examined the investigation report and from perusal of the

same learned Court has mentioned that during

supervision, police has not found any involvement of the

petitioners in the present case which also support the

case of petitioners.

12. That on the basis of above facts and circumstances of this

case, the petitioners moved before the court of learned

 7

Sessions Judge, Supaul for grant of their anticipatory bail

vide A.B.P. No. 1328 of 2022 which was heard and

dismissed on 26.01.2023 and after refusal of their prayer

for Anticipatory bail, the case is pending in the court of

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul.

13. That when the learned Court below was considering the

Anticipatory bail application of the petitioners has fail to

consider this aspect that offence taken place due to local

election and then a strong possibility of false implication

in the present case.

14. That the learned Court below has further failed to consider

this aspect also that there is no previous enquiry on any

wisdom even then anticipatory bail application of the

petitioners has been rejected.

15. That the case has been registered under non-bailable

offence, hence the petitioners have reasonable

apprehension of his arrest.

16. That the petitioners having their home and landed proper

in their village, so there is no chance of their absconding

and tempering with the evidence.

 8

17. That the petitioners are ready to furnish sufficient sureties

as abide by the Hon’ble Court.

It is, therefore, prayed that your

Lordships may graciously be

pleased to grant anticipatory bail to

the petitioners in connection with

Supaul P.S. Case No. 213/2020, to

the satisfaction of learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Supaul

And/or

Pass such other order or orders as

your Lordships may deem fit and

proper.

And for this, the petitioner shall ever pray.

 9

AFFIDAVIT

I, Chandan Kumar Yadav, aged about 37 years, Son of

Ramdeo Ray, R/o Village-Bakaur, P.S. Supaul, District- Supaul, do

hereby solemnly affirm and declare as follows

1. That I am of the petitioner No. and fully well

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. That the contents of this petition have been read over and

which I have fully understood and they are true to my

knowledge.

3. That the Annexure is true/photocopy of its originals.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

 10

(CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION)

Cr. Misc. No. …………………. of 2023

Bechan Paswan & Anr. … Petitioners

Versus

The State of Bihar … Opposite party

Sub : Anticipatory Bail matter.

INDEX

Sl.No. Particulars Page Nos.

1. Anticipatory Bail petition

with Affidavit, Certificate

& I.D. Proof -1–

2. Annexure-1

A Certified copy of F.I.R. -

3. Impugned order

4. Vakalatnama