Pappu Kumar @ Pappu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.44056 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -130 Year- 2014 Thana -HARSIDHI DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ======================================================

1. Pappu Kumar @ Pappu Yadav, Son of Kapildeo Yadav, resident of Village: Panapur, Bherihari, P.S.: Harsidhi, District- : East Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 30-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in custody since 15.02.2017 in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 130 of 2014 for offences punishable under Section 302 and other allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that while he was going, co-accused Kapildeo Yadav put him down on the road and the petitioner along with coaccused Moti Yadav beat him with sticks, as a result he was seriously injured. During course of treatment he died. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44056 of 2017 (6) dt.30-11-2017 2/3 the petitioner that he is innocent, bears no criminal antecedent and there is general and omnibus allegation against all the three co-accused and two other persons. He submits that both were bataidars and because of land dispute he has been falsely alleged to have committed the offence. He further submits that although it is stated that the petitioner and other co-accused Moti Yadav beat the informant with sticks but only one injury has been found which is swelling on the head and apart from that there is no external injury on the body of the deceased, which cannot be attributable to the petitioner. It is also submitted that charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 304 of the IPC.

However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail stating therein that the bail application of coaccused has been rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court on similar allegation.

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 Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 130 of 2014, pending in the court of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.44056 of 2017 (6) dt.30-11-2017 3/3 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari.

Application is, accordingly, rejected.

(Nilu Agrawal, J) Rajesh/- U T