Case Facts:
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36690 of 2012 (2) dt.19-09-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.36690 of 2012 ====================================================== Dilip Kumar S/o Dinkar Yadav .... .... Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 2. 19.09.2012 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner is in custody since 16.05.2012 in connection with alleged offences under [STATUTE] . registered in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No. 58 of 2012. 3. The allegation relates to FIR-named accused having fired at the police party near the railway line at Rally Bahiyar, where work of N.T.P.C. was in progress. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations are on the face of it highly improbable. He points out that an earlier First Information Report was lodged on 01.05.2012 in Pandarak P.S. Case No. 57/2012 at the instance of Ratnakar Tripathi, one of the employees of Gangotri Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. with regard to the very same occurrence It is further submitted that the present First Information Report suffers from self-contradiction. While it has been stated therein that on being Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.36690 of 2012 (2) dt.19-09-2012 chased the accused persons managed to get away under cover of darkness, at the same time it has also been stated that in the light emanating from the burning dumper, as many as twenty FIR-named accused including the petitioner were identified. He further points out that the present First Information Report is highly doubtful considering that even though the same appears to have been made out on 1st May, 2012, it has been seen and signed by the court officer much later on 5.5.2012, which casts substantial doubt. 5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to give the benefit of bail to the above named petitioner on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh (District-Patna) in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No. 58 of 2012 on the following conditions- (i) That the petitioner will not indulge himself in any similar or other offence. (ii) One of the bailors must be a close relative of the petitioner. (iii) The petitioner will be well represented on each and every date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail bond will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned. Fahad. ( Vikash Jain, J. )

Applicable IPC Section: 353

Statute Text:
Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. Assault or use of criminal force to deter a public servant from discharge of his duty. Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.