Rajo Yadav @ Rajendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9517 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-357 Year-2019 Thana- RAJAOLI District- Nawada ====================================================== RAJO YADAV @ RAJENDRA YADAV Son of Mahavir Yadav, Resident of Village - Bhita (Bhaiji Bhita), P.S.- Rajauli, District - Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sudhir Kumar Sinha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satya Nand Shukla, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 30-06-2020 Heard both sides through Video Conferencing.

Petitioner seeks bail in Rajauli P.S. Case No.357 of 2019 registered under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC. The informant alleged that his son (Manoj Prasad) had gone to forest to bring wood but he did not come. When the villagers went in search of the son of the informant, Dilip Manjhi disclosed that his son was killed by Pintu Prasad in his liquor bhathi. It is further alleged that when the informant and others went to the place, they saw sleeper and rope of Manoj Prasad (deceased). While the informant and other villages were going in search of Manoj Prasad (deceased), Dilip Manjhi threatened the informant that if he and his brother Babulal Manjhi are named in the F.I.R., they would kill the informant and others.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that save

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9517 of 2020(4) dt.30-06-2020 2/2 and except suspicion, there is no material against the petitioner. Dilip Manjhi is said to have disclosed before the informant and other villagers that he and others killed Manoj Prasad (son of the informant) but there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner.

Learned A.P.P., however, opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that Dilip Manjhi is said to have disclosed before the villagers that he and others killed the son of the informant. Perused the F.I.R. and the case-diary. It appears that the names of the petitioner and others have been mentioned in the F.I.R. on the basis of suspicion and the disclosure made by Dilip Manjhi but save and except the disclosure made by Dilip Manjhi, there is no material to show that the petitioner committed murder of the son of the informant. Having considered the facts aforesaid, the petitioner named above is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Nawada in connection with Rajauli P.S. Case No.357 of 2019. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Harish/- U T