Tribhuvan Yadav @ Avinash Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3552 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-360 Year-2021 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Tribhuvan Yadav @ Avinash Yadav Son of Anant Yadav Resident of VillageBhatrandha, P.S.- Madhepura, (Parmanandpur O.P.), District- Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Suman Kumari Singh, APP For the informent :

Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 05-09-2022 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks from today.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Madhepura (Parmanandpur O.P.) P.S. Case No. 360 of 2021 registered for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accused/petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and is in custody since 16.07.2021.

The allegation against the petitioner is to commit murder of son of the informant along with other co-accused3552 persons.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3552 of 2022(3) dt.05-09-2022 2/3 Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the F.I.R. suggests occurrence as an accident. It is further submitted that informant is not the eye witness of the occurrence and entire allegation is based upon suspicion as deceased, who was known, prior to this occurrence, called to join a party at home of petitioner. It is also submitted the post-mortem report also appears to support accident. While concluding the argument, it has been submitted that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent, where investigation has been completed, for which, charge-sheet has already been submitted, as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. Learned APP, duly assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of informant, namely, Dr.

Sanjay Kumar Singh, while opposing the prayer of bail, fairly conceded the fact that informant is not the eye witness of the occurrence. In view of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, as informant is not the eye-witness of the occurrence where the allegation is based upon suspicion, as deceased was called to join party by petitioner coupled with the fact that charge-sheet has already been submitted, let the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail in connection with Madhepura (Parmanandpur O.P.) P.S. Case No.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3552 of 2022(3) dt.05-09-2022 3/3 2021 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura/concerned Court, subject to the conditions as mentioned under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Pooja/ Archana/- U T