IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.7358 of 2011 PARMANAND YADAV & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.11485 of 2011 ARUN YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR with Cr.Misc. No.11500 of 2011 MD. RAJJAK Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ----------- 02/ 08.04.2011 All the above stated petitions are taken enbloc as the said petitions have arisen out of Kumarkhand P.S. Case no. 166/2010 registered under sections 395, 397 of the IPC and accordingly, above stated petitions are being disposed of by this common order. All the petitioners are named in the first information report and informant’s wife as well as one witness Munga Lal Mandal claimed to have seen the petitioners committing the alleged crime. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in Cr. Misc. no.7358/2011 is that petitioners are co-villagers of the informant and it is very difficult to believe that they would go to commit the dacoity in their own village without covering their face. It is further pointed by him that one co-accused Ram Chandra Yadav having similar allegation has already been granted privilege of bail by the learned court below itself and so far as the petitioners are concerned, their prayer for bail was rejected by the learned court below on the ground that they carry criminal antecedent and when the 2 police raided their houses after the alleged occurrence, they were not found present at their houses. It is pointed out by him that no doubt, three cases were registered against the petitioners prior to the institution of the present case but the aforesaid cases were not either for dacoity or for theft and the aforesaid cases were instituted against the petitioners only for simple assault. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr. Misc. no.11485/2011 submits that the petitioner, namely, Arun Yadav is also a co-villager of the informant and he does not have any criminal antecedent and so far as witness Munga Lal Mandal is concerned, when his statement was recorded under section 161 of the Cr. P. C, he did not name the petitioner in his statement. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Cr. Misc. no.11500/2011 submits that the petitioner, namely, Md Rajjak is also a co-villager of the informant and no doubt, he carries criminal antecedent of one dacoity case but as a matter of fact, aforesaid dacoity case had been instituted against the petitioner in the year 1992 and he had already been acquitted in the aforesaid case. It is further pointed out by him that so far as confessional statement of the petitioner is concerned, the same is nothing but only high handedness of the police. Taking into consideration the above stated facts and circumstances as well as submissions of the parties, petitioners (Parmanand Yadav, DhirenYadav @ Dhirendra Yadav, RabenYadav @ Raben Kumar Yadav, Arun Yadav and Md Rajjak) are directed to 3 be released on bail in connection with Kumarkhand P.S. Case no. 166 of 2010 on furnishing bail bond of Rs 10,000-/ each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura. shahid (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)