← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./34073/2015dismissed

Chandan Yadav @ Chandrama Prasad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2015-10-05Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34073 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -47 Year- 2014 Thana -KASIMBAZAR District- MUNGER ======================================================

1. Chandan Yadav @ Chandrama Prasad Yadav Son of Sri Jai Kishore Yadav resident of Mohalla - Sandalpur, P.S. Kasim Bazar, District - Munger .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Kr.Virendra Narayan(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 05-10-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per the prosecution story, the petitioner along with others shot Prasant Kumar (the deceased) who was brought to the hospital where the Medical Officer declared him dead. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 17.06.2015. The case has already been committed to the Court of Session. There is Title Suit pending between the parties and for the said reason, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34073 of 2015 (3) dt.05-10-2015 P2/2 It has been submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioner is named in the First Information Report and there is direct allegation of firing against the petitioner upon the deceased and petitioner is one of the assailants of the deceased. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to the grant bail to this petitioner and the same is rejected.

Anyhow, the Trial Court is directed to take all necessary steps to conclude the trial preferable within one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Sudhir Singh, J) Saif/- U T