Lucho Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39724 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2021 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria ====================================================== LUCHO YADAV SON OF BECHO YADAV R/O WARD NO.-1 RAJAJAN, P.S.- MANSI, DISTRICT- KHAGARIA ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abul Kalam For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Surendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 09-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per allegation in the FIR, when the informant was sitting at his door and he forbade the petitioner from passing his tractor from his door as the same was not a common path on which he alsong with several accused persons came there armed with weapons. On order of Becho Yadav and Jawahar Yadav, petitioner Lucho Yadav fired which hit his son Munnu Yadav and in way to hospital, he succumbed to injuries. It is further alleged that when informant tried to save his son, co-accused Rajesh Yadav and others have assaulted him as a result of which he sustained injuries in his right hand.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39724 of 2022(4) dt.09-01-2023 2/2 It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. During investigation, I.O. has not found any blood stain at the place of occurrence, which creates doubt in authenticity of the prosecution story. Petitioner is in custody since 04.03.2021.

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant and submitted that there is direct allegation of firing against the petitioner as a result informant's son died. During investigation, several witnesses have supported the prosecution case and it is mentioned in the impugned order that death caused due to fire arm injury.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U