Patna High CourtCR. MISC./32907/2017dismissed

Rajeev Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2017-08-21Mr. Justice Vinod Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.32907 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -28 Year- 2017 Thana -LAHERIMUHALLA District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ======================================================

1. Rajeev Prasad Yadav, Son of Ganga Prasad Yadav, Resident of VillageGanga Bigha, P.S. Bena, O.P. Chandi, District- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 21-08-2017 Heard the parties.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in Laheri P.S. Case No.28 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 302, 120(B) of I.P.C.

Petitioner has not named in the F.I.R. but later on transpires as one of the witnesses named the petitioner as associate of other co-accused persons.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no allegation of firing against him. He was not seen at the place of occurrence and nothing has been recovered from his possession.

Heard learned A.P.P. also who opposed the prayer for bail on the ground of paragraph 19 of the case diary in which it

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32907 of 2017 (3) dt.21-08-2017 2/2 has come from the CCTV footage that a man wearing hat was standing since long seeing his mobile and he was allegedly seen fleeing away after the occurrence. Later on, spy after seeing the photograph of the petitioner stated that the photograph in CCTV footage was of Rajiv Prasad son of Ganga Prasad Yadav of Village Ganga Bigha who is truck driver and a criminal. Thereafter police arrested him and he confessed his guilt. The petitioner has criminal antecedent which appears from paragraph 3 of the petition.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as state above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. However, trial court is directed to expedite the trial. With the aforesaid observation this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) AnilKrSinha/- U