Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.17657 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Ramesh Mistri S/O Kaleshwar Mistri R/O Village - Dhibara, P.S. Amas, District - Gaya 2. Shambhu Mistri @ Shambhu Sharma S/O Parmeshwar Mistri R/O Village - Dhibara, P.S. Amas, District - Gaya 3. Parmeshwar Mistri @ Ram Pravesh Mistri S/O Laste Sukan Mistri R/O Village - Dhibara, P.S. Amas, District - Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Kusum Devi W/O Sitaram Mistri R/O Village - Senadiha, P.S. Sherghati, District - Gaya .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL ORDER 2 20-06-2012 Heard Counsel for the petitioners and the A.P.P. representing the State. This Court had earlier granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner vide order dated 24.10.2011 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 24718 of 2011 for the offences under [STATUTE] . A modification application has been filed in which it is stated that [STATUTE] had wrongly been typed at paragraph 1 of the bail application and the actual offence is under [STATUTE] . Considering this aspect of the matter, this Court thought Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17657 of 2012 (2) dt.20-06-2012 2 / 3 2 it proper that the matter should be reheard on its own merits. The dispute in this case is because of a piece of land which supposedly belong to Opposite Party No. 2 Kusum Devi, who is the cousin sister of Ramesh Mistry, married to Sitaram Mistry. The Opposite Party No. 2 had supposedly allowed the petitioner no. 1 to built a shop on the land in question, because the petitioner had earlier lent some money to Sitaram Mistry. Later on, the Opposite Party No. 2 wanted to evict the petitioner no. 1, which has resulted in the dispute between the parties. A case was filed on 07.06.2010 in which the petitioner no. 1 had made certain allegations against the Opposite Party No. 2. There was a panchayati which decided that the Opposite Party No. 2 should reimburse the petitioner no. 1 for the money which he has spent in the construction of the shop and house or else the petitioner should pay the cost of the cost of the land. The matter was not resolved in spite of the panchayati and thus, it is submitted that the case was instituted on 16.07.2010 in which it was alleged that these petitioners had surrounded the Opposite Party No. 2 Kusum Devi and her husband and looted them. Considering the nature of the dispute, which is civil Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17657 of 2012 (2) dt.20-06-2012 3 / 3 3 in nature, and the fact that on the earlier occasion the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail after issuance of notices to the complainant, this Court directs that in the event of their arrest/surrender before the Court below within a period of six weeks from today, the above named petitioners should be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 395 of 2010 on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Shri R. K. Singh, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sherghati, Gaya/concerned Court subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Prabhakar Anand/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.