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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60661 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2017 Thana- GWALPARA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Ratan Yadav @ Ratan Kumar Yadav S/o Sabit Lal Yadav @ Sawet Lal Yadav R/o village- Gwalpara, P.S.- Gwalpara, District- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rupesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Raj Kishore Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 29-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Gwalpara P.S. Case No. 171 of 2017, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per the prosecution case, on 10.12.2017 at about 11.30 pm in the night one accused having covered his face forcibly entered into informant's room and tried to drag her out of the room. Upon alarm raised by the informant, her brother came and rescued her. In that course, the informant identified one of them as Naveen Mandal. When the informant fled from there in course of fleeing she heard two sounds of firing and saw that her brother Sukrati Rishideo and her aunt Neelam Devi

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60661 of 2021(3) dt.29-03-2022 2/2 have sustained firearm injuries.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is not named in the FIR. Name of petitioner transpired during course of investigation on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Bijal Rishideo and of the victim also disclosed the name of this petitioner being involved in the alleged occurrence. Some of witnesses also disclosed the name of petitioner for being involved in the commission of alleged occurrence. The case of petitioner is not on similar footing with the co-accused who have been granted regular bail. Petitioner is in custody since 14.08.2020.

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

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T