Munna Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38894 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-93 Year-2021 Thana- SATHI District- West Champaran ====================================================== MUNNA YADAV son of Shivnath Yadav, Resident of village - Basantpur, Police Station- Sathi, District - West Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sachida Nand Rai, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 01-11-2022 Let the defect, if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sathi P.S. Case No. 93 of 2021 lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 447, 427, 307, 302 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution case, the F.I.R. has been lodged against 11 named accused persons including the present petitioner. There is specific allegation in the F.I.R. against the present petitioner who fired on the informant's father by which he suffered in below stomach, in result he become injured and subsequently died.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire case is false. It transpires that there is land dispute shown

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38894 of 2022(2) dt.01-11-2022 2/2 in the F.I.R. but he submits that said land dispute is neither with the petitioner nor with informant's father. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner is in custody since 17.07.2021 and his antecedent is clean. He further submits that charge sheet has already been filed in this case.

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that there is specific and direct allegation against the present petitioner of fire arm upon the informant's father who also caused death due to gun shot injury of other co-accused persons who have got arrested. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail after one year from the date of framing of charge.

With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) ravishankar/- U T