Patna High CourtCR. MISC./28719/2024dismissed

Bholi Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-07-31Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28719 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-381 Year-2022 Thana- MAGADH MEDICAL COLLEGE District- Gaya ====================================================== BHOLI YADAV S/O LATE LALA YADAV R/O VILLAGE- KHURA @ KHURARA, P.S- MAGADH MEDICAL, DISTT.- GAYA.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Durgesh Nandan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 31-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant.

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. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case on false and concocted allegation. It is further submitted that the informant is neither the eye witness nor any independent witnesses have ever claimed to see committing the offence. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28719 of 2024(3) dt.31-07-2024 2/2 allegation levelled against the petitioner is not specific rather general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and has been languishing in custody since 22.12.2023.

5. Learned APP for the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is serious in nature, hence he does not deserve bail.

6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials available on record, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

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