Pintu Yadav @ Pankaj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45128 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2021 Thana- BARARI District- Katihar ====================================================== PINTU YADAV @ PANKAJ YADAV, S/O- Gokhul Yadav, Village- Madheli Bandh, P.S.- Barari, Dist- Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhola Prasad, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-07-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Barari P.S. Case No. 129 of 2021 dated 15.06.2021 registered for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The main submissions advanced by learned counsel Mr. Bhola Prasad appearing for the petitioner are that against the petitioner there is criminal antecedent of one case in which he is on bail, in the FIR there is no specific allegation against this petitioner and altogether nine accused persons including the petitioner have been named in the FIR and two named co-accused persons namely, Pappu Yadav and Chhotu Yadav have been granted bail by different Benches of this Court vide orders passed in Cr. Misc. No. 64931 of 2021 and 57398 of 2022 respectively

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45128 of 2023(2) dt.28-07-2023 2/2 and petitioner's case is completely identical to them and the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 06.06.2023 and against him the investigation has been completed. Further submission is that there is a land dispute is running in between the father of this petitioner and the informant of this case due to which the petitioner has been implicated in this case.

4. Learned APP Mr. Arun Kumar Singh appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, considering the above submissions and mainly the fact that in the FIR there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and two similarly situated co-accused persons mentioned-above are on bail and against the petitioner investigation has been completed, in my opinion, it is a fit case for bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, let the petitioner named-above be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court in connection with Barari P.S. Case No. 129 of 2021. (Shailendra Singh, J.) Maynaz/- U T