Kamlesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.10754 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -172 Year- 2015 Thana -CHAINPUR District- BHABHUA (KAIMUR) ======================================================
1. Kamlesh Yadav son of Late Bachau Yadav, resident of Village Lohara, P.S. Chainpura District Kaimur at Bhabua.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.K.Choudhary(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 24-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner is languishing in jail custody since 28.01.2016 in a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the I.P.C.
The prosecution case as lodged on the basis of statement recorded by the informant Ghurhu Bind is that after taking meal, he was sleeping at his dawaza, in the meantime, other accused persons along with petitioner came and opened fire, which hit him, thereafter, he fell down and petitioner along with other accused persons fled away.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent, having no criminal
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10754 of 2016 (5) dt.24-05-2016 2/2 history, as is evident from para-3 of this application. He further submits that the petitioner has been implicated due to inimical terms of co-accused with the informant.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and informant have entered into compromise, which is reflected as Annexure-2 of this petition.
However, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the injury report shows that the informant has been referred to Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University. Considering the nature of injuries and the fact that the matter is still pending for review, I am not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner. It is, accordingly, rejected. The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after three months, subject to the result of the review by the Medical Board.
(Nilu Agrawal, J) Sudha/- U T