Patna High CourtCR. MISC./14142/2024bail rejected

Vikram Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-04-26Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14142 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-298 Year-2019 Thana- GOGRI District- Khagaria ====================================================== Vikram Yadav Son of Ajay Yadav Resident of Village- Goraiyabathan, P.S.- Gogri, District- Khagaria (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 26-04-2024 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is an accused in connection with Supplementary Gogari P.S. Case No. 298 of 2019, G.R. No. 2662 of 2019 for the offence under Sections 307, 429/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act lodged on 05.09.2019 by the informant, Urmila Devi.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that when her son was feeding his cow, the accused persons including the petitioner came and one Ajay Yadav opened fire which hit his thigh and he sustained injury. Further, Arun Yadav opened fire which hit the cow who died on the spot. Allegation against this petitioner is that the opened fire which hit Saurabh Yadav. Later, they went to the house of Niwas Yadav and made indiscriminate firing. Accordingly, the F.I.R.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14142 of 2024(3) dt.26-04-2024 2/2

4. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court that there is case and counter case. The petitioner is languishing in jail since 01.08.2023.

5. Learned APP submits that the F.I.R. is of the year 2019, specific allegation against him is that he opened fire hitting Saurabh Yadav. He delayed coming to this Court and he has criminal antecedent of the same nature.

6. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail which is accordingly rejected.

7. Since he is in custody since 01.08.2023, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and take the same to its logical conclusion at an earliest.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Guddu/- U T