Pravesh Yadav @ Ram Pravesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21156 of 2016 (4) dt.16-08-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.21156 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -69 Year- 2015 Thana -ASARGANJ District- MUNGER ====================================================== Pravesh Yadav @ Ram Pravesh Yadav Son of Late Rameshwar Yadav, Resident of village- Dulhar, P.S.- Asarganj, District Munger .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Yadav, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Asarganj P.S.Case No.69 of 2015 pending in the Court of CJM, Munger registered for an offence under sections 147, 148, 149, 331, 342, 323, 379 and 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per the prosecution case, it is alleged by the informant that all the accused persons surrounded her son Diwakar Yadav and accused Ram Pravesh Yadav put his pistol on the temple of Diwakar Yadav and rest of them assaulted him with lathi and danda and also snatched gold locket of Bajrangbali from the neck of Diwakar Kumar after that all the accused persons fled

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.21156 of 2016 (4) dt.16-08-2016 away from the place of occurrence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.12.2015. Chargesheet has been submitted. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. For the same occurrence, three cases have been instituted giving different places of occurrence. Petitioner is an employed in Home-guard.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have fired upon the victim. The allegation made in the FIR is corroborated by the injury report.

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

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