Patna High CourtCR. MISC./6230/2016rejected

Aatu Yadav @ Aatu @ Ittu Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2016-02-23Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.6230 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -425 Year- 2015 Thana -BARACHATTI District- GAYA ======================================================

1. Aatu Yadav @ Aatu @ Ittu Yadav son of Late Narayan Yadav

2. Upendra Yadav, son of Rupan Yadav Resident of Village- Piparsot, P.S.- Mohanpur, District- Gaya.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A.K.Choudhary(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 23-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking bail in connection with Barachatti (Mohanpur) P.S. Case No.425 of 2015, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

In the F.I.R., it has been stated that the informant was living in his Sasural, where he wanted to construct a house, which was opposed by the petitioner and other persons. On the date of occurrence altogether 11 persons assembled and assaulted his son, which resulted in his death during the treatment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no specific allegation made against any of the petitioner. Only

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.6230 of 2016 (2) dt.23-02-2016 2/2 omnibus allegation has been made, but the FIR that has been lodged by the petitioner itself shows that he has implicated 12 years boy as an accused in that case.

Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected. However, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial as early as possible preferably within a period of nine months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, the petitioner will have a liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) pawan/- U