Shivdular Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39858 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2019 Thana- BAGENGOLA District- Buxar ====================================================== SHIVDULAR YADAV S/O LATE YAMUNA YADAV Resident of Baradhi Tola Chapra, P.S.- Bagen Gola ,District- Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Suraj Deo Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. J. N. Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 23-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bagengola P.S. Case No. 79 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections-147, 148, 341, 342, 323, 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. According to FIR, son of the informant (deceased) went to the house of his Fua from where he informed his father that he had arrived at the house of his Fua. Later on, the informant got an information that named accused persons including the petitioner had committed murder of his son and threw his dead body 200 metres away from the house of his Fua. The blood-stained Gamchha of the deceased, according to the allegation, was present in the house of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39858 of 2023(8) dt.23-09-2025 2/2 that the petitioner was not sent up for trial and no cognizance was taken against him. The case of other co-accused persons was committed to the court of Sessions. Thereafter, the charges were framed and six witnesses were examined during trial. Considering the materials against the petitioner emerged out during trial, learned court below summoned him to face the trial under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C. Learned counsel has submitted further that there are contradictions between the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.

5. The prosecution witnesses examined during trial have stated categorically that the petitioner called the deceased and the deceased followed the petitioner. Thereafter, he was murdered. Considering these materials the learned court below summoned the petitioner under Section 319 of the Cr. P.C.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail and accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) A.K.V.//- U T