Gopal Yadav @ Gopal Kumar Yadav @ Gopal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38338 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2020 Thana- SULTANGANJ District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== GOPAL YADAV @ GOPAL KUMAR YADAV @ GOPAL KUMAR SON OF MANOJ YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - GANGTI, P.S. - SULTANGANJ, DISTRICT - BHAGALPUR ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 28-10-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 32 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner along with others have killed the son of the informant. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is of clean antecedent, is innocent and has not committed any offence. Although the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R. along with others but no specific allegation of assault or any overt act is attributed to him. Moreover, the petitioner has been made accused in this case merely on the basis of suspicion and except
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38338 of 2020(3) dt.28-10-2021 2/2 suspicion, no cogent material has come during course of investigation. Hence, the petitioner may be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has, vehemently, opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submitted that during investigation the coaccused, Pankaj Yadav in his confessional statement, stated that the petitioner has killed the deceased by cutting his neck by a sharp cutting weapon i.e. DAABH.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) braj/- U T