Akshay Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49979 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-240 Year-2020 Thana- MIRGANJ District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Akshay Yadav Son Of Binod Yadav R/O Village- Ujra Narayan Pur, P.S.- Uchkaganw, District- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Anuj Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-02-2023 Heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner and Ld. APP for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mirganj P.S. Case No. 240 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The prosecution case as emerges from the FIR is that on 10.11.2020 informant's nephew had gone to village Ujra Narayanpur organize a meeting. After meeting, when he was returning to Hathua branch on his motorcycle and reached near the Islamiya Railway Crossing, some miscreants shot fire at him, due to which he died.
2/4 Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has been dragged only on the basis of suspicion. He also submits that no concurrent evidence has been collected even after completion of investigation which may connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. He also submits that investigation in this case is complete and charge-sheet has already been submitted.
He further submits that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 05.04.2022.
It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has earlier been made accused in five other cases.
It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one.
However, Ld. APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
3/4 this application is allowed, directing the petitioner, abovenamed, to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Ld. A.C.J.MXV, Gopalganj in connection with Mirganj P.S. Case No. 240 of 2020, after framing of charge, if not already framed on the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner will make himself available for interrogation by a police officer/court as and when required. (ii) The petitioner will undertake that investigation/trial will not hamper on account of his absence or non-cooperation. He must be available to the police or the court whenever his presence is required.
(iii) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
(iv) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that the petitioner has criminal antecedents other than the disclosed one, Ld. court below shall cancel the bail bonds
4/4 of the petitioner after hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the same.
(v) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong, Ld. court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects, if any, pointed out by the office within a period of one month and the Registry is directed to issue the certified copy of this order only after removal of office objections.
(Jitendra Kumar, J) uttam/- U T