Rabindra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34520 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-684 Year-2020 Thana- BANKA District- Banka ====================================================== RABINDRA YADAV S/o Late Shukar Yadav R/o village- Galgala, P.S. and District- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 09-02-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner prays for grant of anticipatory bail in Banka P.S. Case No. 684 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307/302/201/120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, one person was found dead and the second person was found in injured condition who disclosed to the police that they were called by the petitioner for manufacturing of bomb and while manufacturing bomb along with the petitioner, one bomb exploded resulting in the injury to two persons. It is further alleged that the petitioner took them in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34520 of 2021(2) dt.09-02-2022 2/2 the jungle and after explosion told them that he will be coming with the medicine, but he did not come back. In the meantime, one of the accused persons died.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the confessional statement of co-accused. He has no role to play in the manufacturing of bomb and he has a clean antecedent. Learned counsel for the State Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy has strongly opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has submitted that this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Considered the submission of the parties.

From the materials available on record, it is clear that it is the petitioner who has called the deceased and the injured to manufacture bomb and after explosion, he left both of them in jungle and did not provide any treatment to them also. In view of the above, this application is dismissed. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Saif/- U T