Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25150/2015rejected

Shambhu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2015-10-07Mr. Justice Jitendra Mohan Sharma2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25150 of 2015 (3) dt.07-10-2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25150 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -382 Year- 2013 Thana -FATEHPUR District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Shambhu Yadav S/o Jhari Yadav Resident of Village Darioura, Tola Nawadih, P.S. Fatehpur, District Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhaskar Shankar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Shankar Das(Spl.App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 07-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 382 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 341, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27of the Arms Act, Section 17 of C.L.A. Act and Sections 3(2) (v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Allegedly, the petitioner, Jitu Yadav and one unknown came at the house of the informant and called her son Jitendra Paswan and took away him at 5:30 pm and thereafter, the informant got information on mobile that members of Maoist have surrounded him and thereafter dead body of informant's son was found.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25150 of 2015 (3) dt.07-10-2015 Submission is of false implication, informant has changed her version during investigation and she is stating another story claiming that earlier FIR was lodged not according to the real occurrence, the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is contradictory to earlier statement and it is not possible that having enmity son of the informant will go with the petitioner. Learned Special P.P. opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that under conspiracy the petitioner along with others took away the son of the informant and got him killed. Considering that in the FIR and also in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. the informant has named the petitioner that he called and took away her son and thereafter, he was killed, this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T