Kamendra Yadav @ Kabindra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25050 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-375 Year-2020 Thana- NOORSARAI District- Nalanda ====================================================== KAMENDRA YADAV @ KABINDRA YADAV Son of Late Shiv Balak Gope Resident of village - Makanpur, P.S.- Noorsarai, Distt.- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raj Kishor Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. H.A. Khan For the Informant : Mr. Satish Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 17-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual Court proceedings. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Noorsarai P.S. Case No. 375 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 & 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the Court of learned ACJM-VII, Nalanda at Biharsharif.

The accusation against the petitioner is that he in association of other F.I.R. named co-accused is said to have murdered the husband of the informant.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case merely on suscipion. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25050 of 2021(3) dt.17-01-2022 2/2 allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. No any independent witness has supported the version of the informant. There is no eye witness in this case. The petitioner's name was later on added in this case. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that in further statement of informant in para-7 and other witnesses in para-8, 9, 10,19, 39, 40, 41 & 51 of the case dairy have supported the prosecution case. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and also perusing the case diary, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail and the learned Court below would pass order in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Trivedi/- U T