Patna High CourtCR. MISC./20119/2017rejected

Pankaj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-06-21Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.20119 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -76 Year- 2015 Thana -ASARGANJ District- MUNGER ====================================================== Pankaj Yadav, Son of Longi Yadav @ Laungi Yadav, Resident of VillageSajua, P.S. - Asarganj, District - Munger. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Yadav For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 21-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Asarganj P.S. Case No. 76 of 2015, registered under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of Sessions Judge, Munger. The accusation is that on 01.11.2015, in the evening, petitioner along with seven other named in the F.I.R. came at the door of the informant and accompanied her son Kundan Kumar, aged about 15 years. When Kundan Kumar did not return to his house then search was made, but no trace was found. On the next morning, in course of search, one headless dead body was found in a paddy field where one mobile was also found and about 500 meter away near the pond the head of her son was found.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that it would appear from the F.I.R. that deceased is said to be

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.20119 of 2017 (3) dt.21-06-2017 2/2 accompanied by petitioner and other seven in the evening of 01.11.2015 and his headless body was found on the next morning. Further submission is that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is in custody since 25.10.2016.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, prayer of the petitioner, above named, is rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T