Anant Yadav@Raja Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.14239 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -81 Year- 2014 Thana -BADHAILA District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Anant Yadav@Raja Yadav Son of Lakhan Yadav resident of village - Baranao, P.S. Baghaila, District - Rohtas .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sada Nand Ray For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md.Arif (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 18-01-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offences punishable under sections 341, 342, 323, 307 and 504/34 of the I.P.C and section 27 of the Arms Act.

Allegedly, co-accused caught the informant and the petitioner opened fire upon the informant resulting he sustained grievous injury on his head and further the accused persons threw him in the water of Ahar and fled away.

Submission is of false implication and that there was no means of identification as to how the accused persons were identified, the evidence of the informant is inconsistent with the medical evidence, no offence under section 307 I.P.C. is made out

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.14239 of 2015 (8) dt.18-01-2016 2/2 and as such the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration, to which the learned A.P.P. opposes by submitting that the petitioner had caused fire arm injury on the head of the informant. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering that the doctor has also found grievous injury on the head with right frontal bone having combined fracture and as such this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Baghaila P.S. Case No. 81 of 2014 pending in the court of Sri P.K. Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas.

However, considering custody of the petitioner, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as early as possible preferably within nine months. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T