Sanjay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29665 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2015 Thana- KAKO District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Sanjay Yadav, Son Of Ramu Yadav R/O Village- Damuhan Tola, Jogiyadih, P.S.- Kako, District- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Ram Bilash Roy Raman Mr. Ashok Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-08-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 302/ 34 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 after her husband came from attending a meeting at Panchayat Bhawan, the accused persons came and took him to Jehanabad market and thereafter, at 6.00 P.M. Chandra Shekhar Yadav came and informed the informant that her husband was not well. Accordingly, the informant along with her family members reached the place of occurrence and saw the accused

2/4 persons bringing his dead body in an auto.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that based on suspicion, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that from bare reading of the allegations as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that the husband of the informant accompanied the accused persons willingly without any protest, this amply demonstrates that the accused persons and the petitioner were on good terms. It is also submitted that if the term of the husband of the informant with the accused would not have been cordial, then definitely the informant also would have objected when her husband was accompanying them.

It is next submitted that it absolutely does not stand to reason that if the petitioner would have committed offence along with other accused, then definitely Chandra Shekhar would not have come to the house of the informant to inform that her husband was not well and froth was coming out from his mouth. The learned counsel next submits that police after investigation submitted final form which amply demonstrates that during the course of investigation, nothing was found which can even remotely connect the petitioner with the offence.

3/4 differing with the police report in a mechanical manner, the learned trial Court took cognizance of the offence. The learned counsel very fairly submits that one similarly situated coaccused Dinesh Kumar's anticipatory bail application was rejected by order dated 20.09.2016 in Cr. Misc. No.28674 of 2016, but then at that time when anticipatory bail application was rejected, this fact was not before the Court that police after investigation has submitted final form.

The learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the anticipatory bail application, but are not able to meet the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also that though the anticipatory bail application of Dinesh Kumar as aforesaid was rejected earlier, but then by that time, the police had not submitted final form in favour of the accused persons. 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, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below where

4/4 the case is pending in connection with Kako P. S. Case No.206 of 2015, 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