Patna High CourtCR. MISC./24846/2024dismissed

Sakun Yadav @ Shakun Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-09-06Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24846 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-381 Year-2022 Thana- MAGADH MEDICAL COLLEGE District- Gaya ====================================================== Sakun Yadav @ Shakun Yadav Son Of Lala Yadav Resident Of Village - Khurar, P.S. - Magadh Medical, District - Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 06-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioner along with other co-accused is said to have killed the brother of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case due to suspicion. He submits that the informant is neither the eye witness nor any independent witnesses have ever claimed to see committing the offence. He submits that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. He further submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24846 of 2024(5) dt.06-09-2024 2/2 petitioner has one criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of this application and he is languishing in judicial custody since 06.11.2023.

5. Learned APP for the State and informant opposing the prayer for bail submit that the cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia shock due to pressure and compression over the neck due to soft and flexible ligature material. He further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is very serious in nature, therefore, he does not deserve bail.

6. Considering the nature of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected in connection with Magadh Medical P.S. Case No. 381 of 2022.

7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

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