Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25032/2016rejected

Yamuna Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2016-08-16Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.25032 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -63 Year- 2016 Thana -NOORSARAI District- NALANDA (BIHARSHARIFF) ====================================================== Yamuna Yadav Son of Late Sadhu Yadav, Resident of Village- Brijpur ; Police Station- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Tej Narayan Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party : Mr. R.P.S Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 16-08-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Noorsarai P.S. Case No. 63 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The informant alleged that his son was living with his maternal grand father. The informant was going to meet his son in village Brijpur. When the informant reached near Sanjay Medical Hall, Noorsarai at 05:00 p.m. in the evening, he found two persons were assaulting his son. The informant identifies the assailant as Shrawan Kumar @ Teni and Yamuna Yadav the petitioner. Both the accused persons were assaulting his son with stick and Lathi. The informant brought his son to Patna for treatment but he succumbed to the injuries.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.25032 of 2016 (3) dt.16-08-2016 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is own brother of the father-in-law of the informant. The petitioner is issueless and in order to grab the land of the petitioner, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case. It appears from the FIR as well as the case diary that the informant and other witnesses have stated that the petitioner brutally assaulted the son of the informant and son of the informant succumbed to the injuries. The post-mortem report also corroborates the version of the informant that on account of assault made by Danda the deceased died.

Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J.) KKSINHA/- U T