Pappu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.61202 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2020 Thana- SULTANGANJ District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== PAPPU YADAV Son of Late Devo Yadav @ Daven Yadav Resident of Village- Tilakpur, P.S.- Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bijendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-03-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks after complete start of the physical Court. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 29 of 2020 instituted for the offences under Sections 363, 365, 367, 368/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 06.05.2021, charge-sheet has been submitted and has antecedent of one case. Though, in the impugned order, it is inadvertently recorded as petitioner having three antecedent.

The informant alleges that her husband is engaged in the business of fishing. Further, on 09.02.2020, the husband of the informant had gone to Tilakpur Diara for fishing but did not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61202 of 2021(2) dt.22-03-2022 2/3 return then on the basis of suspicion the informant alleges that Sintu Yadav along with four brothers may have committed some act with her husband as earlier a dispute had arisen between them regarding fishing. Further, on 10.02.2020, the informant received a call on her mobile from mobile no. 6204092148 and the caller informed that they assaulted her husband and thus suspectes that Sintu Yadav along with his brother including the petitioner may have committed the occurrence of assaulting her husband.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and from perusal of the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it would manifest that he has stated that it was this petitioner who had asked Sintu Yadav to release him. It is further submitted that the matter has been compromised. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody, charge-sheet has been submitted and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.61202 of 2021(2) dt.22-03-2022 3/3 sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Bhagalpur in connection with Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 29 of 2020.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T