Pramod Yadav @ Pramod Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37809 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-627 Year-2023 Thana- JHAJHA District- Jamui ====================================================== Pramod Yadav @ Pramod Kumar Yadav Son of Bhuna Yadav Resident of village - Jalgorwa, P.S.- Gidhour, District - Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Y.C. Verma, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Anand Kishore Sinha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 21-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Jhajha P.S. Case No. 627 of 2023 instituted for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 379, 365, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and later on added Sections 302 & 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 20.12.2023 at about 7 P.M. in the evening when brother of the informant namely Sintu Yadav was returning to his house at Govindpur, suddenly 5-6 persons came from behind and stopped the motorcycle of the informant's brother bearing registration No.BR-46/4957 and forcibly abducted him along with his

2/4 motorcycle. It is alleged that on call, the phone was picked up by the victim brother of the informant but, he was not able to speak. Therefore, the informant under an apprehension of any untoward incident has lodged this case against the accused persons as named in the F.I.R.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged against him and has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and his name has transpired in this case in the confessional statement of another co-accused Surendra Yadav recorded before the police which has no concession in the eye of law. There is no direct or specific allegation of any overt act against the petitioner rather the same is general and omnibus in nature. He further submits that the doctor could not ascertain the cause of death of the deceased and, hence, the opinion was reserved till receipt of the F.S.L. report. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged occurrence. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and is languishing in judicial custody since 04.01.2024 without any rhymes or reason. Charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner under Sections 147/149/341/379/365/504/ 506/302/364(a) /120(b) of the Indian Penal Code.

3/4

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner, stating that though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but, in course of scrutiny of the CDR details, it was found that soon before the occurrence, the deceased had received calls from mobile no. 7780054009. Later on, the Investigating Officer further obtained the CDR and tower location of mobile number of the co-accused Pramod Yadav and found that the said mobile number was in constant touch with the mobile number of the petitioner Pramod Kumar Yadav bearing mobile no. 9905199967.

It was also found that the aforesaid two mobile phones were in constant touch with the mobile of the co-accused Surendra Yadav who in his confessional statement has taken the name of the petitioner of being involved in the alleged occurrence. The petitioner in his confessional statement has also confessed his guilt. The police arrested the co-accused Surendra Yadav and, in course of investigation, has also recovered the dead body of the victim/deceased. The police, on the basis of the disclosures made by the co-accused Surendra Yadav, has also recovered the motorcycle of the deceased from the well. The offence alleged is serious in nature and, thus, the petitioner does not deserve bail by this Court.

4/4

6. Having heard rival contention of both the parties and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as also taking into account the period of custody of the petitioner and the petitioner having no criminal antecedent, let the petitioner, abovenamed, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Jhajha P.S. Case No. 627 of 2023, subject to the following conditions;

(i) One of the bailor(s) shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, his bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the court below.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) rishi/- U T