Chhotu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48802 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-5 Year-2021 Thana- KAJRAILICHAK District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Chhotu Yadav Son Of Luto Yadav @ Ram Prasad Yadav R/O VillageKamalpur, P.S.- Kajraili, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Praveen Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. A.G ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Let the defects, as pointed out by the office, be removed within four weeks of start of normal functioning of the physical court.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.T. No. 355 of 2021 arising out of Kajraili P.S. Case No. 05 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

According to prosecution case, as per written report of the informant Rubi Devi alleging therein that on 07.01.2021 in night informant was got information on telephone that her son Mithun Yadav @ Suman Yadav has been murdered by bullet fire in sleeping status. On information when informant reached at the Sasural of his son and saw that her son has been murdered by piercing needle and by means of firearm. It is further alleged that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48802 of 2021(4) dt.24-03-2022 2/2 the accused persons including the petitioner who are named in the F.I.R. have committed murder of the informant son. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and has committed no offence and he has falsely been implicated in the present case on the basis of suspicion. He further submits that there is no eye witness of the alleged occurrence and the deceased was killed at his in-laws house and there is no concern at all. The petitioner is in custody since 23.01.2020.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that during investigation it has come that the petitioner and wife of the deceased was in illicit relation and in para 61 of the case diary the petitioner confessed about the involvement in the present crime and bail of the co-accused namely Pari Devi has been rejected by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 23.03.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 48429 of 2021.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner and accordingly, the same stands rejected.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) mdrashid/- U T