Maheshi Yadav @ Mahesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12010 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2012 Thana- IMAMGANJ District- Gaya ====================================================== MAHESHI YADAV @ MAHESH YADAV, Son of Late Makhu Yadav Resident of Village - Kathautia Jhanjhi, P.S. - Barachatti, District - Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Arvind Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 15-06-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Imamganj P.S. Case No. 70 of 2012, registered under Sections 302 and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and under Section 17 of the C.L.A. Act. The accusation is that before one week, Laxmi Singh Bhokta, Maheshi Yadav (Petitioner), Prafuljee, Abhayjee, Manoj Bharti and Arbind Bharti came at the house of informant Kalapu Bharti @ Laxaman Bharti and asked about his son Pahtan Bharti to accompany them to meet his gang leader Sandeepjee at village-Ekrupaiya, but, his son refused to go with them saying his ill health. Thereafter, all moved from there. Yesterday i.e. on 20.08.2012, in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12010 of 2020(3) dt.15-06-2020 2/3 evening, Sandeepjee @ Vijayjee, Sarvesh Yadav, Arbind Bhuiya, Lalesh Yadav, Sajeetjee and Kaillu Bhuiya came at his house and asked him that before one week his son Pahtan Bharti was called but he did not go to meet Sandeepjee and all carried his son Pahtan Bharti, while his son did not return till late night. On the next morning, the informant came to know that his son has been murdered at village-Shankarpur then he went there and saw his son is lying dead on the road sustaining firearm injury. The informant suspected that the aforesaid persons, who are members of Maoist, killed his son. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had not brought the son of informant as the petitioner is accused in Raushanganj P.S. Case No. 77 of 2009 and he was in custody since 30.06.2018, thereafter, he was remanded in the present case on 03.12.2018 since then he is in custody. Moreso, on investigation, the Police has submitted Chargesheet.
Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sri Gorakh Nath Dubey, J.M. 1st Class,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12010 of 2020(3) dt.15-06-2020 3/3 Sherghati (Gaya) in connection with Imamganj P.S. Case No. 70 of 2012, subject to the condition that one of the sureties must be parents/close relative of the petitioner. The petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during the course of the trial in the court below. If the petitioner fails to remain present on two consecutive dates during the course of the trial without any reasonable cause being shown, the court concerned would be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) manish/- U T