Upendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28797 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2010 Thana- GAYA RAIL P.S. District- Gaya ====================================================== Upendra Yadav, Son of Late Ram Siya Yadav, resident of VillageNobarakpur, P.S. Paraiya, District- Gaya ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Nityanand Tiwary, APP 41 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 10-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Gaya Rail P.S. Case No. 52 of 2010 instituted for the offence under Section1479,, 307 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 150 and 151 of the Railway Act, 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act and 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. In the written report it is alleged that the informant is Electric Driver of Railway. He along with Assistant Driver proceeded from Gomo Railway Station by Train No. 2443 (Bhuneshwar Rajdhani Express) and reached at Gaya Junction at about 11.00 P.M. and proceeded from Gaya at 11.35 P.M. and crossed Kashtha Railway Station at 11.45 P.M. Thereafter, all of a sudden he heard heavy sound. The Driver stopped the train by using emergency brake near pole no. 482/5-7, which was damaged and there was a ditch under the Railway line and ten boggies of Bhuwaneshwar Rajdhani Express were derailed

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28797 of 2018(5) dt.10-07-2018 2/2 due to heavy explosion of bomb and a flag of red colour was found on pole no. 481/27 on which the slogan "against operation green hunt" was found written. The informant claimed that unknown Maoists (M.C.C.) have committed the said occurrence to damage the Government property. It is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the written report. The name of petitioner has come subsequently during investigation .

A report was called for from the Court below about the present status of the case, which has been received. The Court below has submitted in the report that processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code have been issued against the petitioner.

The main case has been committed to the Court of sessions after splitting the case of the petitioner. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected.

The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court below and pray for regular bail (Sanjay Priya, J) Shamshad/- U T