Dipak Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40669 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2019 Thana- CHARPOKHARI District- Bhojpur ====================================================== DIPAK YADAV Son of Dindayal Yadav Resident of Village - Nahasi, P.S.- Agaion (G), District - Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Manoj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. J.N. Thakur ,APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-04-2023 The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects pointed out by the office within one month. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP J.N. Thakur for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Charpokhary P.S. Case No. 189 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120(B) of the IPC and 27 Arms Act.

As per allegation, six named accused persons including the petitioner were opening celebratory firing by their arms at the occasion of a birthday party. When brother of the deceased, Niraj Kumar @ Niraj Bhatt prohibited from firing they started assaulting them. In order to save their lives they fled away then accused persons chased them. As per allegation, co-accused Ashok Yadav, Dhiraj

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40669 of 2021(7) dt.04-04-2023 2/2 Kumar, Bittu Kumar and Prem Yadav caught hold of the son of informant and the petitioner fired shot with his pistol at his chest. Doctor declared him dead.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated. There is no source of light to identify the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail by referring paragraph numbers 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the case diary. He has mentioned that Chunmun Kumar, Niraj Kumar and other eye witness have supported the occurrence and as per postmortem report, firearm injury was present at the chest of the deceased and other abrasions are also there.

Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, I do not think it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Office shall ensure that all defects are removed by the petitioner within the stipulated time mentioned herein above, failing which, the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Sudha/Sonali U T