Dhirendra Yadav @ Pintu Yadav @ Pintu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38408 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-50 Year-2020 Thana- SINGHESHWAR District- Madhepura ====================================================== DHIRENDRA YADAV @ PINTU YADAV @ PINTU Son of Late Gulabchand Yadav Resident of village - Satokhar, Ward No.- 08, P.S. - Singheshwar, District - Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashwani Kumar Tiwary, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 28-09-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail in a case registered under sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, accused persons are said to have come variously armed, entered the house of Sadanand Yadav and of having destroyed property etc. Thereafter it is stated that on 29.2.2020, on hearing about the precarious condition of Mahanand Yadav when the informant and his mother were going to the hospital, the four named accused persons including the petitioner herein assaulted the informant as also his mother who died as a result of the assault. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38408 of 2022(3) dt.28-09-2022 2/2 that the earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 9.7.2021. Once again referring to the contents of the F.I.R., it is submitted that in the portion of the F.I.R. wherein the assault on the mother of the informant has been narrated, the allegations are general and omnibus in nature against the four accused persons including the petitioner and in case the same is specific it is against one Mishri Lal Yadav and not this petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 6.10.2020 and undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

Heard learned A.P.P. for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation in the F.I.R. together with the petitioner having remained in custody since 6.10.2020, the Court directs the petitioner to be enlarged on bail in connection with Sessions Trial no.54/2021/C.I.S./54/2021 (arising out of Singheshwar P.S. Case no.50 of 2020) on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Madhepura. (Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T