Patna High CourtCR. MISC./30242/2024bail rejected

Bhuneshwar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2024-05-01Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30242 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-799 Year-2023 Thana- SHEKHPURA District- Sheikhpura ====================================================== BHUNESHWAR YADAV SON OF LATE RAGHO YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - KARE, P.S. - SHEIKHPURA, DISTRICT - SHEIKHPURA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rizwanul Haque, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Anurag Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-05-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Sheikhpura P.S. Case No. 799 of 2023 dated 16.11.2021 registered for the offences punishable u/ss 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, while Bablu Yadav was irrigating his field, the petitioner and the co-accused person armed with deadly weapons came firing and caught hold of Bablu Yadav. On the exhortation of the petitioner, the co-accused, Dani Yadav cut off the right hand of Bablu Yadav and the co-accused, Manish Yadav cut off the left hand of Bablu Yadav. Thereafter, the accused persons ran away with the said cut hands.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30242 of 2024(2) dt.01-05-2024 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. There is a case and counter case between the parties. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner and the petitioner is only the order giver. The petitioner have no concern with the alleged offence. The petitioner has two criminal antecedents as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 04.03.2024.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the bail petition of the petitioner and submitted that the incident of hand cutting was carried out on the instruction of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the gravity of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail.

7. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.

8. The application stands rejected.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) Gautam/- U T