Mantosh Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3092 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2019 Thana- SONBERSA District- Saharsa ====================================================== MANTOSH KUMAR YADAV Son of Phuleshwar Yadav, Resident of Village - Sahpur, Balu Tola, P.S.- Sonbarsa Raj, Distt - Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Pramod Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Manoj Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 23-06-2020 Heard both sides through Video Conferencing.
Petitioner seeks bail in Sonbarsa Raj P.S. Case No.19 of 2019 registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The gist of the allegation is that the informant (grandfather of the deceased Dilkhush Yadav) alleged that about two months earlier his son Mantosh Kumar Yadav (petitioner) threatened Dilkhush Yadav (son of the petitioner) aged about 16 years to kill and he would not be allowed to use property. On the date of occurrence at about 11:00 to 11:30 in the night while the informant along with his own son Santosh Kumar Yadav and grandson Dilkhush Yadav was sleeping, Santosh Kumar Yadav heard sound of firing. When he woke up, he saw the petitioner, his wife, father-in-law, brothers-in-law fleeing away.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3092 of 2020(4) dt.23-06-2020 2/3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased is the own son of the petitioner and the petitioner has got no motive to kill his son. The story as disclosed in the F.I.R. is quite improbable and unbelievable. Some property was purchased in the name of Dilkhush Yadav (son of the petitioner) from the income of the joint family property and for that some dispute arose. The son of the petitioner fell in the bad company and he was killed but taking advantage of unfortunate incident, the father of the petitioner implicated the petitioner for killing of his own son but I find that the deceased was aged about 16 years old. The petitioner had threatened his minor son to kill only because the petitioner solemnized second marriage and some property was transferred in the name of Dilkhush Yadav (son of the petitioner). This fact enraged the petitioner and there is allegation that the petitioner killed his own minor son while he was sleeping.
Having considered the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
The trial court is directed to hold the trial on day to day basis and conclude the same within eight months from the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3092 of 2020(4) dt.23-06-2020 3/3 date of receipt of this order. If the trial is not concluded within eight months, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T