Rajendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29425 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2022 Thana- LAUKAHA District- Madhubani ====================================================== Rajendra Yadav Son Of Gudar Yadav Resident Of Village - Dharampur, P.S. - Laukaha, District - Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar Bharti, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 15-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Laukaha P.S. Case No.79 of 2022 lodged under Sections 394 and 411 of the I.P.C.

3. As per the prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against four named accused persons including the petitioner and the allegation against the petitioner is that he fled away with the other co-accused persons and it is due to this reason, his name has figured in the F.I.R.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that petitioner's name has come in this case by virtue of confessional statement of co-accused.

5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 18.03.2023 having 5 criminal antecedent.

6. Counsel further submits that from the rejection

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29425 of 2024(2) dt.15-05-2024 2/2 order, it transpires that sessions trial no. has been provided to this case, but whether charge has been framed or not; he is not aware about this.

7. Counsel also submits that the other co-accused has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 01.12.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 40224/2022.

8. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the co-accused to whom the bail has been granted having only one criminal antecedent relating to excise matter, but here in the present case, there are 5 criminal cases pending against the petitioner including murder, Arms Act and dacoity.

9. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at present. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected,

10. However, liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail after one year from today.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T