Sanjay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36146 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2018 Thana- PHULPARAS District- Madhubani ====================================================== Sanjay Yadav Son of Rajendra Yadav Resident of Village - Navtol, P.S. - Phulparas,District - Madhubani.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Prakash Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav Mr. Vinod Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Veena Kumari Jaiswal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 05-07-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has filed the instant application for grant of regular bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 302, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act. While he was returning to house from Phulparas, petitioner along with other accused persons surrounded him and petitioner fired upon him. It is further alleged that coaccused Gulzar Miyan also opened fire, which hit on the right shoulder on informant's father. The informant rushed to the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36146 of 2024(3) dt.05-07-2024 2/3 place of occurrence where his father revealed that petitioner and co-accused Gulzar Miyan have fired upon him. informant's father succumbed to gun shot injuries during the course of treatment.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case in the background of political rivalry. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused Gulzar Miyan has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 12.09.2019, passed in Cr. Misc. No. 56521 of 2019, after once rejected. Moreover, petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 25.09.2023.

Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in F.I.R. and there is specific allegation of opening fire upon the informant's father due to which he succumbed to injuries. From perusal of the postmortem report (annexed as Annexure P), it appears that the doctor has opined that the cause of death is due to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36146 of 2024(3) dt.05-07-2024 3/3 hemorrhage and shock due to bullet injuries, which corroborates with the prosecution case. Several witnesses have also supported the prosecution case.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of six months. However, if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within a period of six months, he would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Nirajkrs/- U T