Chandradeep Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14453 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2020 Thana- PARAIYA District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.
CHANDRADEEP YADAV Son of Komal Yadav Resident of Village - Prabhua, P.S.- Paraiya, District - Gaya.
2.
Manish Yadav @ Manish Kumar Son of Dwarika Yadav Resident of Village - Lodipur, P.S.- Paraiya, District - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Manish Kumar No2, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 506, 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The informant alleges that his company has taken lease of entire sand ghats in the district of Gaya, further on 28.01.2020, he received information that accused persons are carrying sand on tractor illegally. It is further alleged that one tractor was apprehended and was being taken to the police
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14453 of 2022(2) dt.19-09-2022 2/3 station when the accused persons, including the petitioners, along with unknown accused persons came variously armed and Pramod Yadav and Chandradeep Yadav fired in which the bullet passed near two girls who were coming, it is next alleged that the villagers caught the tractor driver and the accused persons who were firing and when police came, the accused persons were taken away by the police.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of 3 cases and petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of 2 cases and they have been falsely implicated in the present case, it is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR it would manifest that as far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, there is no specific allegation against him and against petitioner no. 1, it is alleged that he fired along with Pramod Yadav but then no one was injured in the firing. Learned counsel next submits that the parties on intervention of the well wishers have even compromised the case as would be evident from Annexure 2 to the anticipatory bail application.
Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
Considering the submissions made by the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14453 of 2022(2) dt.19-09-2022 3/3 counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Paraiya P.S. Case No. 20 of 2020 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.
The learned trial court before accepting the bail bonds of the petitioners shall verify from the informant as to whether the compromise entered between the parties is without any fear/coercion or not.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) gauravkr/- U T