Dhirendra Yadav @ Dhirendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45083 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-145 Year-2020 Thana- PUNPUN District- Patna ====================================================== Dhirendra Yadav @ Dhirendra Kumar Son Of Rajo Yadav R/O VillageKesharibigha, P.S.- Chhabilapur, District- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. According to prosecution case, all the accused persons including the petitioner called the deceased Rabish at Pothali to meet a girl for friendship and killed him due to old enmity. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the date of occurrence as alleged in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45083 of 2022(4) dt.16-02-2023 2/2 F.I.R. is 18.06.2020 but the present F.I.R. is instituted on 19.06.2020. He further submits that the name of the petitioner has falsely been implicated on the ground that there is love affair of the victim with the Poonam Kumari and the petitioner is also having a relation with Poonam Kumari. The petitioner is in custody since 24.06.2020.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the basis of material available on record as well as case diary has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner that he has fired upon the victim and during investigation, sufficient material has come against the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with S. Tr. No. 366 of 2020 arising out of Punpun P.S. Case No. 145 of 2020 pending in the court of learned Additional District Judge, Masaurhi.

Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T