Pramod Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34259 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-298 Year-2020 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka ====================================================== PRAMOD YADAV Son of Late Talo Yadav Resident of Village - Amjhar, P.S.- Amarpur (Fullidumar), District - Banka. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, No.1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 10-03-2022 Heard Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, No.1, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Amarpur (Fullidumar) PS Case No. 298/2020 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the IPC and Section 3⁄4 of the Explosive Act.

As per First Information Report, the petitioner hurled bomb upon the husband of the informant due to which he sustained injury in the stomach and died.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the brother of the deceased and from perusal of the FIR, it would be evident that the genesis of occurrence is that the mother of the petitioner had executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner which was not to the liking of the husband of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34259 of 2021(3) dt.10-03-2022 2/2 informant and it was the petitioner who was aggrieved and the motive shown in the FIR appears to be doubtful. He further submits that none of the eyewitnesses has supported the prosecution case.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, referring to the case diary and FIR, submits that the petitioner is the main assailant and the informant is an eyewitness and during course of investigation other witnesses have also corroborated the statement of the informant and from postmortem report, it appears that the injury upon the deceased was caused by the attack of bomb.

Regards being had to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the material on record and the fact that the petitioner is the main assailant and the informant is an eyewitness, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. The same is, hereby, dismissed. However, if so advised, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after two years from today, if the trial does not record any progress.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U T