Mukesh Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9998 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-160 Year-2021 Thana- CHAKAI District- Jamui ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar Yadav Son Of Sri Arjun Yadav Resident Of Village- Raichor, Ps- Chandramandi, Distt- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Akash Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 08-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Chakai P.S. Case No. 160 of 2021, lodged on 11.08.2021, under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Act.
3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged against two unknown accused persons against whom allegation of killing of the son of the informant is there.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel submits that the antecedent of the petitioner is clean. He is in custody since 16.09.2023. Learned counsel further submits that the FIR has been lodged against two unknown accused persons.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9998 of 2024(4) dt.08-05-2024 2/2 The petitioner has not named in the FIR. As soon as he received information that his name started figuring in this case he has started taking shelter of Courts of law by filing anticipatory bail. Thereafter, he was arrested and then he moved for regular bail.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that from the rejection order it transpires that the petitioner was absconding in this case and it is due to this reason the trial of other accused has been proceeded in this case who has been convicted.
6. Upon the specific query of the Court that whether charges have been framed or not. Counsel for the petitioner submits that charges have been framed.
7. In this background, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./- U T