Affidavit of the Genealogy has to be provided by the Bailor: High Court of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEALNo 31921 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 22 Year 2021 Thana PURAINI District Madhepura RAHUL MANDAL @ RAHUL KUMAR Son of Bhagirath Mandal Bhgarath Singh Resident of Village Ganeshpur Ward no.14 P.S. Puraini Distt. Madhepura The State of Bihar ... Appellant s ... Respondent s For the Appellant s For the Respondent s CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD Mr Anant Kumar 1 Advocate Ms Usha Kumari 1 Special PP Date : 27 09 2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor (for brevity SC ST Act) 2016 against the refusal of his prayer for regular bail vide order dated 03.07.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge I cum Special Judge SC ST Act Madhepura in a case registered under Sections 302 120B 34 of Indian Penal Code Section 27 of Arms Act and Sections 3(v)of SC ST Act in connection with Puraini Police StationCase No 221 arising out of SC ST Case No 421. 3 The informant has lodged a case alleging that his son was called by the instant appellant and one Deepak Yadav. Further Patna High Court CR. APPNo.31921 dt.27 09 2021 allegation is that few hours later they have intimated regarding killing of the informant’s son by three named and some unknown 4 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that from the allegation it is apparent that the informant’s son was not forcibly taken away. Bona fides of the instant appellant is further evident from the fact that it is the appellant and co accused Deepak Yadav who have given intimation regarding the informant’s son being shot dead. The appellant has also disclosed the names of the assailants and has later been arrested from his house. It is further submitted that the appellant has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 08.02.2021 5 Learned Special PP has opposed the prayer for bail She has submitted that the appellant has a vital link 6 In my opinion in view of nature of accusation in the First Information Report and submission of parties a case for grant of regular bail is made out. The impugned order dated 03.07.2021 requires interference by this Court which is accordingly set aside 7 This appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.07.2021 passed by Additional Sessions Judge I cum Special Judge SC ST Act Madhepura in connection with Puraini PS Case Patna High Court CR. APPNo.31921 dt.27 09 2021 No 221 arising out of SC ST Case No 421 is set 8 Let the appellant above named be released on bail on his furnishing bonds of Rs 10 000 with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Sessions Judge I cum Special Judge SC ST Act Madhepura in Puraini PS Case No 221 arising out of SC ST Case No 421 subject to the following conditions 1) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the appellant who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the appellant. The bailor will also undertake to inform the Court if there is any change in the address of the 2) That the appellant will be well represented on each date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates his bail will be liable to be cancelled (Madhuresh Prasad J NAFR NA

Summary: The Appellant moves to the High Court to demand Bail. In the light of all facts and circumstances, the High Court accepts the appeal of the Appellant and grants bail to him. He was alleged for the murder of the informant’s son. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad held such in the matter of Rahul Mandal v. The State Of Bihar[Criminal Appeal (SJ) No 3194 Of 2021] 
The facts of the case were that the appellant has appealed under Section 14A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities), 2016 as against the refusal of his prayer for bail for the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge I-cum- Special Judge as per SC/ST Act in Madhepur. He was booked under Sections 302, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section27 of Arms Act, and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC/ST Act for brevity. 

The informant alleged the Appellant with one another had called his son and later intimated that his son would be killed by three named and some unknown persons. The Appellant in defense argued that the informant’s son went away with the Appellant with his own free will. Appellant with one another just called informant in order to tell him that his son is being shot dead. The names of the assailants were disclosed by the Appellant and later on, were arrested from the house. The Appellant pleaded that he had no criminal antecedent and was in custody for months. However, the Special Public Prosecutor opposed the plea of bail and contended that he has a vital link to the case. 

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna ordered,” In my opinion, in view of nature of accusation in the First Information Report, and submission of parties, a case for grant of regular bail is made out. The impugned order dated 03.07.2021 requires interference by this Court, which is, accordingly, set aside.”  The court released the Appellant on bail on Rs. 10,000 bonds with two sureties of the like amount. The conditions were that the bailors should be a close relative of the Appellant. An undertaking should be taken by the close relative to inform the court if there exists any changes in address of the Appellant provided. The Court said,”.. the appellant will be well represented on each date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled.”
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish

 The facts of the case were that the appellant has appealed under Section 14A of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities), 2016 as against the refusal of his prayer for bail for the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge I-cum- Special Judge as per SC/ST Act in Madhepur. He was booked under Sections 302, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section27 of Arms Act, and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC/ST Act for brevity.  
The informant alleged the Appellant with one another had called his son and later intimated that his son would be killed by three named and some unknown persons. The Appellant in defense argued that the informant’s son went away with the Appellant with his own free will. Appellant with one another just called informant in order to tell him that his son is being shot dead. The names of the assailants were disclosed by the Appellant and later on, were arrested from the house. The Appellant pleaded that he had no criminal antecedent and was in custody for months. However, the Special Public Prosecutor opposed the plea of bail and contended that he has a vital link to the case. 

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna ordered,” In my opinion, in view of nature of accusation in the First Information Report, and submission of parties, a case for grant of regular bail is made out. The impugned order dated 03.07.2021 requires interference by this Court, which is, accordingly, set aside.”  The court released the Appellant on bail on Rs. 10,000 bonds with two sureties of the like amount. The conditions were that the bailors should be a close relative of the Appellant. An undertaking should be taken by the close relative to inform the court if there exists any changes in address of the Appellant provided. The Court said,”.. the appellant will be well represented on each date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled.”
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish

 The informant alleged the Appellant with one another had called his son and later intimated that his son would be killed by three named and some unknown persons. The Appellant in defense argued that the informant’s son went away with the Appellant with his own free will. Appellant with one another just called informant in order to tell him that his son is being shot dead. The names of the assailants were disclosed by the Appellant and later on, were arrested from the house. The Appellant pleaded that he had no criminal antecedent and was in custody for months. However, the Special Public Prosecutor opposed the plea of bail and contended that he has a vital link to the case.  
The Hon’ble High Court of Patna ordered,” In my opinion, in view of nature of accusation in the First Information Report, and submission of parties, a case for grant of regular bail is made out. The impugned order dated 03.07.2021 requires interference by this Court, which is, accordingly, set aside.”  The court released the Appellant on bail on Rs. 10,000 bonds with two sureties of the like amount. The conditions were that the bailors should be a close relative of the Appellant. An undertaking should be taken by the close relative to inform the court if there exists any changes in address of the Appellant provided. The Court said,”.. the appellant will be well represented on each date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled.”
Click Here To Read The Judgment
Judgment Reviewed By Nimisha Dublish

 The Hon’ble High Court of Patna ordered,” In my opinion, in view of nature of accusation in the First Information Report, and submission of parties, a case for grant of regular bail is made out. The impugned order dated 03.07.2021 requires interference by this Court, which is, accordingly, set aside.”  The court released the Appellant on bail on Rs. 10,000 bonds with two sureties of the like amount. The conditions were that the bailors should be a close relative of the Appellant. An undertaking should be taken by the close relative to inform the court if there exists any changes in address of the Appellant provided. The Court said,”.. the appellant will be well represented on each date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail will be liable to be cancelled.” Click Here To Read The Judgment