Dhanushdhari Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40538 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2019 Thana- SARMERA District- Nalanda ====================================================== Dhanushdhari Yadav S/O Late Ramashish Yadav Resident of village- Sarfraj Nagar Kumbhra, P.S.- Goshwari, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sudish Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-03-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 228/2020 arising out of Sarmera P.S. Case No. 117 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.

As per the prosecution, the informant and his father were surrounded and assaulted by this petitioner along with other two co-accused persons. It is further alleged that this petitioner fired at the chest of the informant's father owing to which the informant's father succumbed to his injury. The main submissions advanced by petitioner's counsel are that upon the petitioner, the charge was framed on 07.12.2020 and thereafter only one witness has been examined

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40538 of 2022(6) dt.16-03-2023 2/2 till now, which show the lingering attitude of the prosecution in producing the prosecution's witnesses before the trial Court and during investigation, the persons of the adjoining and near the place of occurrence were not examined and there is no any independent witness of the alleged occurrence and during investigation, only family members of the deceased supported the allegation and the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 23.07.2019 and having fair and clean antecedent. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the bail prayer.

Heard both the sides and perused the FIR and the case diary of this case.

Considering the seriousness of the occurrence which relates to murder and the petitioner is carrying specific allegation of causing fire-arm injury at the chest of the informant's father, in my opinion it is not a fit case for bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer for bail stands rejected. The petitioner may renew his bail prayer after six months if any significant progress is not made in his trial in the said period.

(Shailendra Singh, J) annu/- U T