Raj Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34333 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -93 Year- 2014 Thana -SONO District- JAMUI ====================================================== Raj Kumar Yadav, son of Baguli Yadav, Resident of Village- CharkaPathar, P.S. Charkapathar, District Jamui. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Ansarul Haque, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Sono P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014 instituted for the offence under Section 364 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It has been submitted that mere suspicion has been raised against the petitioner that he killed the husband of the informant.

It is alleged in the written report that husband of the informant (since deceased) had gone with the petitioner and, thereafter, he did not return.

From the order of learned Sessions Judge, it appears that mere suspicion has been raised against this petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34333 of 2017 (2) dt.24-07-2017 2/2 prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is allowed. In the event of surrender/arrest of the petitioner, named above, within six weeks from today, in connection with Sono (Chakapathar) P.S. Case No. 93 of 2014, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st, Jamui, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. with further conditions (1) bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the court concerned,

(2) petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall be present on each and every date fixed by the court and absence on two consecutive dates without proper and reasonable reason will automatically cancel bail bond of the petitioner and (3) if petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

(Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T