Vishal Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29410 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2023 Thana- BARHARA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Vishal Kumar Yadav Son of Dudhi Yadav @ Dudhnath Yadav, R/o VillageJagatpur Pakari, P.S.- Krishnaghar (Barahara), Distt.- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 05-06-2023 Let the defect, if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Barhara (Krishnaghar) P.S. Case No. 70 of 2023 dated 07.02.2023 lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302 and 504 of the I.P.C. read with section 27 of Arms Act. As per the F.I.R., allegation is against six named accused persons including the petitioner, who have made indiscriminate firing due to which the son of the informant died on spot on the night of the marriage.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that antecedent of the petitioner is clean. Counsel further submits that there is general and omnibus allegation of firing against all

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29410 of 2023(2) dt.05-06-2023 2/2 the accused persons. Counsel further submits that petitioner is in custody since 09.02.2023 and the cause of intention has not shown in the F.I.R..

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that allegation of firing is there against all the accused persons.

Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the father of the deceased has lodged the F.I.R. and the death has been caused with full intention to kill his son.

Upon specific query from the counsel for the petitioner that whether charge has been framed in this case or not, counsel fairly submits that as per his knowledge charge has not been framed in this case.

In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, therefore, bail petition of the petitioner is hereby rejected but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Dr. Anshuman, J.) ravishankar/- U T