Yogendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30405 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2021 Thana- BIHIA District- Bhojpur ====================================================== YOGENDRA YADAV SON OF LATE CHHATU YADAV R/O- VILLAGE -TIPURA P.S.- BIHIYA DIST.- BHOJPUR ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajani Ranjan Pd. Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s:
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-11-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State through the virtual Court proceedings. Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.
The informant alleges that accused persons along with the petitioner came to his shop and threatened his younger brother for removing him as driver. Further, petitioner assaulted his brother by an iron rod causing injury and also assaulted the informant and took Rs.46,000/- kept in the cash box of the shop. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30405 of 2022(2) dt.18-11-2022 2/2 that petitioner was working as the driver with the informant but on account of dispute relating to salary he left the job and thus came to be implicated based on such false and frivolous allegation. It is next submitted that when the petitioner had already left the job why he would come to the shop of the petitioner for committing an occurrence. It is also submitted that petitioner is a poor person who earned his livelihood by driving and the informant wanted him to stay with him but the petitioner was demanding his salary. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
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 from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds 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/successor court in connection with Bihiya P.S. Case No. 31 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T