Panchu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37984 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-314 Year-2024 Thana- BAUNSI District- Banka ====================================================== Panchu Yadav S/O Susan Yadav @ Sushma Panjiyara R/O Vill.- Masudna Tikar, P.s.- Bousi, Dist.- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 21-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bounsi P.S. Case No. 314 of 2024, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that sister of the informant went out of the house but she did not return and later on her dead body was found hanging in a tree.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. Name of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37984 of 2025(3) dt.21-08-2025 2/2 the petitioner has transpired in this case only on the basis of suspicion in course of investigation. The petitioner is in custody since 18.10.2024 and has got no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that the FIR was registered against unknown persons, but the informant has raised suspicion against the petitioner including other coaccused persons. It is next submitted that on perusal of paragraph no. 29 of the case diary, it appears that the video footage is showing sexual assault on the deceased and the witnesses in paragraph nos. 30 and 31 have found the complicity of the accused persons. It is further submitted that the petitioner in his confessional statement has also confessed his crime. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial.

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