Pappu Kumar Yadav @Pappu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6745 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2023 Thana- TRIVENIGANJ District- Supaul ====================================================== Pappu Kumar Yadav @Pappu Yadav Son of Dinesh Yadav, Resident of Village- Kuparia, Ward No. 1, Ps- Triveniganj, Distt- Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashwani Tiwary, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP.

For the Informant :

Mr. Prabhakar Nath Rai, Advocate.

:

Ms. Tanushri, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 18-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Triveniganj P.S. Case No.81 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 06.03.2023 the informant had gone to attend a marriage ceremony alongwith his uncle (deceased). After taking meal while returning, the informant saw petitioner and two others armed with pistol and petitioner fired upon the uncle of informant due to which he became injured and during course of treatment he died.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to village politics. He further submits that the deceased

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6745 of 2024(8) dt.18-10-2024 2/2 had participated in the marriage ceremony where he got injury in the gun fight but with ulterior motive the petitioner has been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 25.07.2023 and he is ready to cooperate in the trial. He further submits that most of the witnesses have been examined in this case and there is no chance of tampering with the evidence of prosecution. Petitioner has three criminal antecedents.

5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submit that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he had fired on the deceased due to which he died.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is no inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner, accordingly, the present Cr. Misc. Application stands rejected.

7. However, learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) Ritik/- U T