Urani Yadav @ Surendra Yadav @ Shivnandan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18366 of 2016 (3) dt.22-07-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.18366 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -30 Year- 2014 Thana -KOTHI District- GAYA ====================================================== Urani Yadav @ Surendra Yadav @ Shivnandan Yadav, Son of Bajan Yadav @ Bhajan Yadav, Resident of Village - Manjhauli, Police Station - Kothi, District - Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kumar Nikhil, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Madhuranand Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Kothi P.S.Case No.30 of 2014 pending in the Court of SDJM, Sherghati(Gaya) registered for an offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 435, 384, 427 and 506 of the IPC and Section 17 of the CLA Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per the prosecution case, it is alleged by the informant that 8 to 10 persons came on a motorcycle and set a JCB machine on fire standing nearby his house belonging to one Satyendra Yadav and thereafter they entered into the informant's house and had set-fire to one motorcycle after taking it out of his house and after sprinkling kerosene oil over it. The informant

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.18366 of 2016 (3) dt.22-07-2016 further suspects that because of non-payment of levy by the contractor the JCB machine was set on fire.

It has been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 08.10.2015. Charge sheet has been submitted in the case. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of the secret information received by the police. Except for this, there is no other evidence to implicate the petitioner in the present case. On behalf of the State, it has been submitted that the petitioner is involved in Maoist activities and four cases of similar nature are pending against him.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail at this stage, the same is rejected.

(Sudhir Singh, J) B.Kr./- U T