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

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22972 of 2016 (3) dt.14-07-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.22972 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -236 Year- 2015 Thana -MANSI District- KHAGARIA ======================================================

1. JITENDRA YADAV @ JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV S/o Chhedi Yadav resident of Village - Tikarampur, P.S. - Muffasil, District - Munger. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. A L Pandit(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 14-07-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mansi P.S. Case No. 236 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegedly, three motorcycle borne criminals directed the informant to stop the motorcycle but the informant started speeding away and then the miscreants fired two shots after chasing him and thereafter, third shot was fired which hit the hand of the informant but any how he reached at his house. During investigation the name of the petitioner and other transpired in the statement of witness Pirthvi Yadav, Kopan Yadav and Shiv Yadav vide paragraph nos. 9, 10 and 11 of the case diary and further co-accused persons confessing their guilt have also stated the name of the petitioner.

Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.22972 of 2016 (3) dt.14-07-2016 suffering in custody since 16.03.2016 but he has not been put on test identification parade, confessional statement of co-accused Rukesh Yadav @ Rocky Yadav and Santosh Yadav have got no evidentiary value in the eye of law, statements of three witnesses are not reliable as they are the resident of another village of different district. Learned APP opposes the prayer of bail.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that the petitioner and others have been identified by the witnesses as stated above that they have opened fire upon the informant causing injury to him and as such, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after remaining further four months in custody from today. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T