Chintu Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.23324 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -207 Year- 2013 Thana -DHARHARA District- MUNGER ======================================================

1. Chintu Yadav son of Ambika Yadav,

2. Situ Yadav @ Sintu Yadav son of Mathuru Yadav @ Mathura Yadav, Resident of village- Farada, P.S.- Haya Ram Nagar, District- Munger .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sada Nand Roy, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kr.Virendra Narayan(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 26-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

Petitioners are languishing in jail custody since 30.03.2016 in connection with Dharhara P.S. Case No. 207 of 2013 arising out of Jamalpur Rail P.S. Case No. 6 of 2013 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution case, in brief, is that while the son of the informant was going to his sasural, accused persons surrounded and killed him.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are named in the First Information Report, but according to the fardbeyan of the informant, she came to know

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.23324 of 2016 (2) dt.26-05-2016 2/2 about the name of the petitioners and other FIR named accused persons from one Jitendra Yadav, who got the name of petitioner and other accused persons from the deceased Gautam Yadav on mobile phone prior to the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that co-accused Kuku Yadav with similar allegation has been granted the privilege of bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 38333 of 2015 on 06.11.2015. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, however, submits that the petitioners are named in the First Information Report, hence, opposes the prayer for bail.

Be that as it may, let the petitioners, named above, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger in connection with Dharhara P.S. Case No. 207 of 2013 arising out of Jamalpur Rail P.S. Case No. 6 of 2013.

(Nilu Agrawal, J.) Arjun/- U T