Navin Kumar Yadav @ Navin Kumar Neeraj @ Navin Kumar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.494 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2023 Thana- BARHARA KOTHI District- Purnia ====================================================== 1.

Navin Kumar Yadav @ Navin Kumar Neeraj @ Navin Kumar Pandey Son Of Surendra Yadav Resident Of Village- Bhagaha Tula, Ps- Barhara, DisttPurnia 2.

Prakash Mandal Son Of Brajkishor Mandal Resident Of Village- Bhagaha Tula, Ps- Barhara, Distt- Purnia ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Dilkhus Kumar Son Of Lakhan Rishideo Resident Of Village- Bhagaha Tula, Ps- Barhara Kothi , Distt- Purnia ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Shubhangi Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Binay Krishna, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 23-08-2024 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State. A notice has already been issued through registered post, however, none appears on behalf of Opposite Party No.2.

2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellants against the orders dated 24.11.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, (SC/ST) Act, Purnea in connection with Barhara P.S. Case No. 179 of 2023 registered under Sections 302 and 201/34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act by which the

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.494 of 2024(4) dt.23-08-2024 2/3 prayer for bail of the appellants was rejected.

4. As per the allegation, it is alleged that grand father of the informant Seebo Rishidev has been killed by the accused persons including the appellants and they have been abused by caste name.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. He next submits that they have not taken the caste name of the informant in public view. No offence is made out under the provisions of the SC/ST Act against them. No specific allegation has been levelled against the appellants. He next submits that the informant is not an eye witness of the said occurrence. Appellants are in jail custody since 19.10.2023 and 25.10.2023 respectively. He next submits that similarly situated co-accused have been granted bail by this Court passed in Cr.Appeal (SJ) Nos. 4779 of 2023, 4767 of 2023, 4791 of 2023 and 1027 of 2024.

6. The appeal for bail is opposed by learned Spl. P.P. for the State.

7. On perusal of the FIR and impugned order dated 24.11.2023, it appears that there is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence and only hearsay evidence is against the appellants.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.494 of 2024(4) dt.23-08-2024 3/3 So, I am inclined to grant bail to the appellants.

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the period of custody undergone by the appellants, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal.

9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.11.2023 is hereby set aside.

10. The appellants are directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Purnea in connection with Barhara P.S. Case No. 179 of 2023.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T