Bijay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39302 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-204 Year-2020 Thana- DULHIN BAZAR District- Patna ====================================================== Bijay Kumar S/O Ram Tavkaya Yadav R/O Village-Pansuhi, P.S-Dulhin Bazar, District-Patna ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vijay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rana Randhir Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. No one appears on behalf of the informant. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that his younger brother Dilip Kumar had left the house on 21.10.2020 and the family members were thinking that he might have gone in some election matter, but when he did not return for two days and his mobile was found switched off, then search was made. On 23.10.2020, the informant came to know that a dead body was lying in a payeen of Pasaudha Badhar field. Accordingly, he went to the place of occurrence and identified the dead body of his son. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39302 of 2021(2) dt.16-08-2022 2/2 F.I.R. is against unknown and the petitioner by way of after thought came to be implicated by the informant, then his subsequent statement was recorded by the police.

The learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 14.07.2022 in Cr. Misc. No.62248 of 2021 (Pappu Yadav @ Pappu Kumar vs. the State of Bihar) to submit that petitioner is identically situated like Pappu Yadav, who was granted anticipatory bail by the said order.

Learned A.P.P. opposes the bail application.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bailbonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Dulhin Bazar P. S. Case No.204 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

The application stands allowed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T