Patna High CourtCR. APP (SJ)/2927/2021dismissed

Raushan Yadav @ Raushan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2021-09-13Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2927 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-65 Year-2020 Thana- DANDARI District- Begusarai ====================================================== RAUSHAN YADAV @ RAUSHAN KUMAR S/O GHURAN YADAV R/O VILLAGE-HARDIYA, PS-DANDARI, DISTRICT-BEGUSARAI ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl. P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 13-09-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

The instant appeal has been preferred against the order dated 18.1.2021, whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with a case registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, was rejected. As per the prosecution case, while other accused persons are stated to have fired as a result of which the mother of the informant died, the appellant fired hitting Kishomati Devi in her thigh.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the allegations as levelled against the appellant are false and concocted. The appellant has been falsely implicated in the case.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2927 of 2021(5) dt.13-09-2021 2/2 The allegations are general and omnibus in nature. No case under the SC & ST Act is made out. He has no criminal antecedent and is in custody since 15.6.2020. The prayer for bail is opposed by learned Special P.P. appearing for the State who submits that not only the appellant is named in the FIR but the allegation levelled against the appellant of having fired on Kishomati Devi hitting her in her thigh has been supported by the injury report of Kishomati Devi as also her statement under section 151 Cr.P.C.. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail. The appeal is rejected. The appellant may renew his prayer for bail in case there is no progress in the learned trial court. (Partha Sarthy, J) Spd/- U T