Sahdeo Rajvanshi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12510 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-380 Year-2019 Thana- SIRDALA District- Nawada ====================================================== SAHDEO RAJVANSHI S/O Dahu Rajvanshi Resident of Village - Pirauta, P.S. - Sirdala, District - Nawada.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Krishna Deo Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 09-06-2020 The matter has been listed today for consideration through Video Conferencing in view of the Nationwide Lockdown on account of the Covid 19 pandemic.

The learned counsels are appearing and making submissions from their residence. The Court Master and Secretary are also part of this virtual court proceedings from their homes, all with the aid of audio visual technology.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in Sirdala PS Case No. 380 of 2019 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 326 and 504 of the IPC.

The prosecution case is that the informant's son, while returning from the field was ambushed near the Hadkhadiya river and assaulted by named accused persons, including the petitioner, who were variously armed. It is alleged that the petitioner was armed with an axe (Kulhari).

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner. Further submission is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12510 of 2020(4) dt.09-06-2020 2/2 that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is also submitted that in fact the deceased has suffered in course of scuffle between the parties. Having no criminal antecedent the petitioner is in custody since 9.9.2019.

Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that from the order of the learned court below it is apparent that the petitioner's name has been stated by various witnesses, who have been examined during course of investigation. The same is also borne from the case diary, especially para 13, 14, 15, 16, 34, 54, 55, 71, 72, 73 and 74.

Considering the rival submissions and the nature of allegation, this Court for the present is not inclined to allow the prayer.

The prayer for bail is rejected.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SNkumar/- U T