Ram Sarekha Yadav @ Sarekha Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1774 of 2017 (5) dt.21-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.1774 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -36 Year- 2016 Thana -DUMARIA District- GAYA ====================================================== Ram Sarekha Yadav @ Sarekha Yadav, S/o Raghu Nandan Yadav @ Yadunandan Yadav, resident of Village- Hurmaith, P.S.- Dumaria, DistrictGaya. .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Nirbhay Singh, Advocate : Mr Ravindra Kumar Shukla, Advocate : Mr. Nurul Hoda, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Smt Usha Kumari No-1, Spl P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 21-07-2017 The appellant seeks bail in connection with Dumaria P.S. Case No. 36 of 2016 registered for offences punishable under sections 302, 120(B), 379, 435 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, Section 17 of the CLA Act and Section 3(1)(X)(XI), 30(ii)(v) of SC/ST Act.

Allegation against the appellant is that on 25.05.2016 informant Maya Rani Devi alongwith her husband and family member and with other person making composition as she herself was the candidate for the post of Mukhiya. When informant and her supporter reached village and stayed for drinking water in the meantime the appellant Ram Salekha Yadav and his brother Binod Yadav on one motorcycle and other accused persons of different

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1774 of 2017 (5) dt.21-07-2017 motorcycle arrived having armed with rifle. Therefore appellant and other co-accused persons fired rifle on informant's husband Rabirakesh @ Sudesh Paswan and on informant's Devar Sunil Yadav and both injured died on the spot.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has been falsely been implicated in this case. It appears that from the facts that the father of the informant has been examined in the Court as PW-3 and he has not supported the case of the prosecution, not named other the other accused persons. The appellant has been in custody since 01.11.2016. Heard learned Special P.P. also.

Having heard both sides, in view of the allegations against the appellant, at this stage, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. However, the appellant may renew prayer for bail after examination of the informant of the case. With the above observation, this appeal is disposed of (Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) veena/- U T