Amar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15993 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-181 Year-2021 Thana- RAJNAGAR District- Madhubani ====================================================== AMAR YADAV SON OF BALESHWAR YADAV Resident of Village - Chatra, P.s.- Khajauli, Distt.- Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajit Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-06-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Let the defect(s) be removed within two weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 181 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 353, 332, 326, 504, 506, 225 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M-1, Madhubani.

As per allegation made in the F.I.R. petitioner along with other six miscreants forcibly tried to free co-accused Gopal Kumar Mandal and Pawan Yadav, who were accused in Babubarshi P.S. Case No. 133 of 2021.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15993 of 2022(2) dt.16-06-2022 2/2 implicated in the present case. The name of the petitioner has come on the basis of confessional statement of Pawan Yadav, who is accused in Babubarshi P.S. Case No. 133 of 2021. Sri Ajit Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that petitioner is the veteran criminal and five other criminal cases are pending against him. In the present case, he has tried to interfere with the Police officials on which he has also resorted to assault them as such it would be against the public interest to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of regular bail is rejected.

However, the petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after six month.

(Purnendu Singh, J) manish/- U T