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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19737 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2016 Thana- FULKAHA District- Araria ====================================================== Ranjeet Yadav @ Ranjeet Kumar Yadav S/O Ramanand YADAV R/o villageAchra, P.S.- Fulkaha, Distt.- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ramesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.A.G ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 28-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks of start of normal functioning of the physical court.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. According to prosecution case, the husband of the informant is said to have been assaulted by the F.I.R. named accused persons and he is said to have been shot fired by Mithilesh Yadav as a result of which he died. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19737 of 2021(6) dt.28-03-2022 2/3 land disputed is going on between the husband of informant and Bhola Yadav. He further submits that it appears from the F.I.R. that F.I.R. was lodged against 14 named accused persons and the allegation of firing against six named accused persons including the petitioner. As per allegation when the deceased fell down on the ground then the petitioner fired in the stomach of the deceased. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 30.03.2019.

Vide order dated 10.03.2022 a report was called for with regard to the present stage of trial. Report reveals that the case is at the stage of prosecution evidence and none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined yet.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail, after framing of charge, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Fulkaha P.S. Case No. 86 of 2016, subject to the following conditions:-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19737 of 2021(6) dt.28-03-2022 3/3

1. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

2. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

3. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) mdrashid/- U T