Rajpal Yadav @ Raj Pal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48770 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2010 Thana- KAKO District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Rajpal Yadav @ Raj Pal, Son of Govind Yadav @ Shiv Govind Yadav, Resident of Village- Shiva Bigha, P.S.- Jehanabad (Kalpa), DistrictJehanabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Paras Nath, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 08-08-2024

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Kako P.S. Case no. 129 of 2010 registered under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The instant application for anticipatory bail has been moved by the petitioner in connection with an F.I.R. registered in the year 2010.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the F.I.R. was registered against six unknown accused. The petitioner was falsely implicated in the case on the basis of the confessional statement of co-accused made before police. He was not aware about the pendency of the instant case and as such, the delay in moving the application for anticipatory bail.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48770 of 2024(2) dt.08-08-2024 2/2 He has no other case pending against him. He undertakes to cooperate in the trial.

5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the contents of the order of the learned trial Court from which it transpires that cognizance was taken in the case as far back as on 22.11.2011 and the case was committed against the other accused persons on 20.7.2012 together with the petitioner having absconded for a considerable period since 2010, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and the application is rejected.

7. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the learned Court below within a period of four weeks.

8. In case the petitioner surrenders within the aforesaid period and prays for regular bail, the same shall be considered by the learned Court below without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.

(Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U T