Pramod Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16538 of 2017 (2) dt.06-04-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16538 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -184 Year- 2013 Thana -FATEHPUR District- GAYA ====================================================== Pramod Yadav Son of Late Sadhu Yadav, resident of village - Akalbigha, P.S. Fatehpur, District - Gaya .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramashish, Advocate For the Opposite Party : APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 06-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 29.01.2017 in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 184 of 2013 for the alleged offences under Sections 302, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and in any event the thrust of accusation of firing upon Sitbiya Devi causing her death is on co-accused Mukesh Yadav. Similarly situated co-accused Rajendra Yadav has been granted bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 2716 of 2014. The petitioner claims clean antecedents.

4. Be that as it may, having regard to the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16538 of 2017 (2) dt.06-04-2017 since 29.01.2017 already suffered, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-X, Gaya, in connection with Fatehpur P.S. Case No. 184 of 2013 on the following conditions :- (i) That one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioner.

(ii) That the petitioner shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.

(iii)That the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make himself available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(iv) That the petitioner shall remain physically present in court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned. (Vikash Jain, J) Chandran/Ibrar U T