Patna High CourtCR. MISC./52561/2021dismissed

Khalthu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2022-02-15Mr. Justice Sandeep Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52561 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-170 Year-2019 Thana- KUSHESHWARASTHAN DistrictDarbhanga ====================================================== KHALTHU YADAV S/o Nago Yadav R/o Village/Mohalla- Bharkahi, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Aprajita For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-02-2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through video conferencing.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kuseshwar Asthan P.S. Case No. 170/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341/342/323/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner is accused of killing the deceased Avinash Yadav in the most brutal manner though the Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Aprajita has tried to argue that the petitioner is not the assailant of the deceased but he is only being prosecuted taking the aid of Section 34 of the Indian

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52561 of 2021(2) dt.15-02-2022 2/2 Penal Code and, therefore, he deserves anticipatory bail. She has also submitted that there was no source of identification, therefore, the presence of the petitioner becomes very doubtful. There is specific allegation against the petitioner and other accused persons of having taken away the deceased and killed him.

Individual act of each accused do not matter in these kinds of cases and in the opinion of this Court, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. It is, accordingly, dismissed. The court below is directed to consider the regular bail of the petitioner without being prejudiced by the fact that his anticipatory bail application has been dismissed by this Court.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) Saif/- U T