Patna High CourtCR. MISC./36892/2020dismissed

Manoj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2021-02-02Mr. Justice Vikash Jain2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36892 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2019 Thana- SHANKARPUR DistrictMadhepura ====================================================== Manoj Yadav Son of Nago Yadav @ Nageshwar Yadav Resident of Village - Lakshmipur Chandi Asthan, P.S.- Kumarkhand, District - Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Wasi Ahmad Khan, Advocate For the State :

Mr. R.P. Nat, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 02-02-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed an undertaking to remove all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter as and when required. It is accordingly directed that all defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter be removed within one month hereof.

2. The petitioner is in custody since 10.01.2020 in connection with Shankarpur P.S. Case No. 166 of 2019 for the offences alleged under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in connection with alleged firing upon the informant by the petitioner causing injury. It is submitted that investigation has since been concluded and charge sheet submitted. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36892 of 2020(2) dt.02-02-2021 2/2 petitioner has already suffered more than one year in custody.

4. Learned APP appears and opposes the bail petition, inviting reference to the impugned order, according to which the informant has suffered three injuries including firearm injury. The petitioner is accused in one prior case under various penal sections as well as Arms Act.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusations, and the gravity of the offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. The bail petition stands dismissed.

6. Office shall follow-up to ensure that all defects are removed and compliance with the notices of this Court are made by the petitioner within the stipulated time provided in para-1 hereinabove, failing which the matter shall be brought to the notice of this Court.

(Vikash Jain, J) Ibrar//- U T