Ravindra Yadav @ Pratik Yadav @ Pratik Jee v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.38374 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -143 Year- 2016 Thana -PARAIYA District- GAYA ====================================================== Ravindra Yadav @ Pratik Yadav @ Pratik Jee Son of Surdarshan Yadav Residence of Village - Chhatarpur, P.S. - Imamganj, Distt. - Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murli Dhar, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 01-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 14.02.2017 in connection with Paraiya P.S. Case No. 143 of 2016 (G.R. No. 7173 of 2016) for offences punishable under Sections 387/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 17 C.L.A. Act. The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that he being in-charge of Rakesh Construction Pvt. Ltd. for construction of bridge, on 23.01.2016 four persons came and gave a letter and asked that the contractor would meet them as

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38374 of 2017 (4) dt.01-11-2017 2/3 they were members of Naxalite group. Thereafter on various dates the contractors were called telephonically to meet the T.S.P.C. naxalite chief.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case just because he has a criminal antecedent. He submits that no overt act has been done and no T.I. Parade has been done so far. The mobiles from which calls were made did not belong to him. He submits that he has no connection with Naxal activities and that charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no allegation of tampering of the prosecution witnesses by the petitioner. However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail stating therein that the petitioner does not have a clean criminal history and as many as seven cases are pending against him some under similar provisions. Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, I am not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner at this stage in connection with Paraiya P.S. Case No.143 of 2016 (G.R. No. 7173 of 2016), pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Gaya.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38374 of 2017 (4) dt.01-11-2017 3/3 The application is, accordingly, rejected.

(Nilu Agrawal, J) Devendra/- U T