Yugal Yadav @ Yugal Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36037 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-230 Year-2019 Thana- CHAKAI District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.
Yugal Yadav @ Yugal Prasad Yadav, aged about 52 years (Male), Son of Late Huro Yadav, Resident of Village - Near Yadav Niwas, Pipradih, P.S.- Jhajha, District - Jamui.
2.
Shyam Kishore Bharti, aged about 29 years (Male), Son of Yugal Yadav @ Yugal Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village - Near Yadav Niwas, Pipradih, P.S.- Jhajha, District - Jamui.
3.
Rakesh Ranjan, aged about 25 years (Male), Son of Yugal Yadav @ Yugal Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village - Near Yadav Niwas, Pipradih, P.S.- Jhajha, District - Jamui.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners :
Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-05-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to remove the defects, as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks.
The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Chakai P.S. Case No. 230/2019 registered for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of the I.P.C. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the petitioners and other co-accused took Rs. 8,00,000/- in the name of getting
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36037 of 2021(2) dt.24-05-2022 2/3 a job to the informant in the Railways. The same has been done with connivance of Govind Ram Pandit, whose father is a Railway Employee. The petitioners are not returning his money and are also threatening him variously.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no allegation of tampering with the witnesses alleged against the petitioners. There is no documentary evidence to show that any payment was received by the petitioners. Except for ocular evidence, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the participation of the petitioners in the alleged occurrence. On the earlier occasion, a similar case was instituted by one Manish Kumar against the petitioners and others vide Annexure-2 to the present application.
On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioners are named in the F.I.R.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36037 of 2021(2) dt.24-05-2022 3/3 each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Jamui in connection with Chakai P.S. Case No. 230/2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Sudhir Singh, J) U.K./- U T