Patna High CourtCR. MISC./46979/2024bail rejected

Yojendra Ravidas @ Jogindra Ravidas v. The State Of Bihar

2024-10-28Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46979 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2024 Thana- SALIMPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Yojendra Ravidas @ Jogindra Ravidas S/O Rajendra Mochi R/O VillageBenipur, P.S- Salimpur, Distt.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Uday Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Sharda Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 28-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in Salimpur P.S. Case No. 17 of 2024, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304(A), 302 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, father of the informant told him that one person has informed him about the conspiracy of killing him by tractor which was hatched at the place of co-accused Sudhir Singh Chimni. After this, father of the informant was crushed by a tractor.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. No incriminating material has been recovered from

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46979 of 2024(3) dt.28-10-2024 2/2 the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is a daily wage labour. The petitioner is not driver of the tractor and has got no concern about the incident. The petitioner is in custody since 28.01.2024 and has got no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR and there is direct allegation attributed against the petitioner of crushing father of the informant by tractor. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

6. Considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T