Raman Yadav@Raman Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10594 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -83 Year- 2014 Thana -ARER District- MADHUBANI ====================================================== Raman Yadav @ Raman Kumar Yadav, son of late Ram Bahadur Yadav, Resident of Village - Jhaunghi, P.S. - Arer, District - Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prabhash Ranjan Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL ORDER 24-06-2015 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Arer P.S. Case No.83 of 2014 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation is that when the deceased was returning to his house after taking sell proceeds of the liquor shop, a bag containing money was snatched. The deceased cried and chased. Thereafter, two persons came with motorcycle and fled away with the bag. The deceased was pulled down on the road and in the way to the hospital, he died.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it appears that the informant is the eye witness to the occurrence. She has not stated as to what role has been played by the petitioner. She

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10594 of 2015 (3) dt.24-06-2015 2/2 has alleged that the deceased told her that the occurrence has been caused by the petitioner. It has not been clearly stated as to whether the petitioner has snatched the bag or the deceased has been pulled down by the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 18.09.2014. The learned counsel for the State submits that the occurrence has also been seen by the other witnesses. They have supported the prosecution case and have stated that the petitioner has committed the offence. He has looted the money from the deceased and has also assaulted him, which has caused his death. The petitioner has also criminal antecedent. After investigation, the case has been found true.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve bail at this stage. His prayer is rejected.

(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J) V.K. Pandey/- U T