Ramesh Kumar Yadav @ Ramesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.1029 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -181 Year- 2016 Thana -PHULPARAS District- MADHUBANI ======================================================

1. Ramesh Kumar Yadav @ Ramesh Yadav, S/o Sri Mahendra Yadav, Resident of Village - Rautinia, P.S. - Phulparas, District - Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No 13, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar -2, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-02-2017 Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the State. The Petitioner seeks bail in Phulparas P.S. case No.181 of 2016 instituted for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 386, 379, 504, 506 and 353/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of A.C.J.M., Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani.

Allegation is that the accused persons including the petitioner abused and assaulted the informant by means of knife, due to which his hand was cut and they also snatched Rs.11000/- from his pocket.

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 2.9.2016 and the charge sheet has been submitted in the present case. There is no allegation of

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1029 of 2017 (2) dt.20-02-2017 2/2 tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner had contested a Panchayat election and in retaliation the other side has got a false case instituted against him. The petitioner vide Annexure-2 had filed a Complaint case prior to institution of the F.I.R. and similarly situated other co-accused has been granted bail by the Court below.

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and there are eight criminal cases pending against the petitioner. Hence, in the social interest it would not be appropriate to grant him bail. As far as the other co-accused, who has been granted bail by the Court below, the petitioner is not in a position to submit whether he has also got similar number of criminal cases pending against him or not.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the social interest I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. The same is rejected.

(Sudhir Singh, J) Narendra/- U