Barister Yadav @ Balister Yadav @ Balister Chaudhary @ Barrister Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54069 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-915 Year-2022 Thana- GOPALGANJ TOWN DistrictGopalganj ====================================================== Barister Yadav @ Balister Yadav @ Balister Chaudhary @ Barrister Yadav Son Of Late Sukhdev Yadav Resident Of Vill - Manikpur Nauranga @ Manikpur, P.S. And Distt. - Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Setu Prateek For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Uday Chand Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 18-09-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Gopalganj(Town) P.S. Case No. 915 of 2022 instituted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307, 325, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and later on Section 302 of the IPC was added.

Allegation against the petitioner along with other coaccused persons is that they assaulted the informant along with his family members. It is further alleged that this petitioner assaulted the informant's brother, namely, Upendra Yadav on his head by means of Farsa due to which he succumbed to injury. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54069 of 2023(3) dt.18-09-2023 2/2 that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this present case due land dispute. A statement has been made in para-3 of this petition that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial custody since 20.05.2023.

Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that there is specific overt against the petitioner to assault upon the informant's brother by means of farsa due to which he succumbed to injury. During investigation, witness supported the prosecution case and the postmortem report corroborated with the prosecution version as well.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Shubham/- U T