Patna High CourtCR. MISC./53985/2016rejected

Sudhir Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-01-19Mr. Justice Arvind Srivastava2 pages

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53985 of 2016 (3) dt.19-01-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.53985 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -61 Year- 2014 Thana -CHANAN District- LAKHISARAI ======================================================

1. Sudhir Yadav S/o Late Gurucharan Yadav Resident of VillageLakhochak, Police Station-Chanan, District-Lakhisarai .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Parmanand Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 19-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner is in custody since 11.07.2016 in connection with Chanan P.S. Case No. 61 of 2016 registered under Sections 341, 323, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Accusation is of attempt to kill the informant's father. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in this case. There is no direct allegation against this petitioner nor the petitioner has been arrested on the spot. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has attempted to kill the informant due to non fulfillment of ransom

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.53985 of 2016 (3) dt.19-01-2017 demand. The petitioner has also got criminal antecedents. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of accusation along with the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Arvind Srivastava, J) brajesh/- U T