Prabin Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51631 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -106 Year- 2016 Thana -MUNGER MUFFASIL District- MUNGER ====================================================== Prabin Yadav, Son of Nityanand Yadav, resident of Village- Tikarampur, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Munger.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Suman Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Asha Kumari, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 13-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 26.07.2016 in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 106 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 379 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that on 04.06.2016 at about 01:30 A.M. while the informant along with his family members, after hearing firing sound, came out of his house, accused Nityanand Yadav ordered to kill the informant upon which this petitioner fired which hit daughter of the informant, as a result of which she fell down. Accused Baleshwar Yadav also fired which hit son of the informant. Thereafter, accused persons also

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51631 of 2016 (2) dt.13-12-2016 2/2 assaulted other family members, including the informant. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He further submits that the injury alleged to have been caused by the petitioner on the person of the daughter of the informant is on the left arm, which is not a vital part of the body. He further submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted, hence, there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

However, learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the petitioner is named in the First Information Report, hence, opposes the prayer for bail.

Be that as it may, since charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is only one old case of the year 2007 against the petitioner in which he is on bail, let the petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Munger in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 106 of 2016.

(Nilu Agrawal, J.) Arjun/- U T