Col. Uday Kumar Yadav v. State Of Bihar And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.37826 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -62 Year- 2016 Thana -GANDHIMAIDAN District- PATNA ====================================================== Col. Uday Kumar Yadav,son of Late Ram Prasad Lal Yadav, Resident of Rukmani Chambers, Salimpur Ahra, Exhibition Road, P. S. Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. State of Bihar

2. Sanjay Kumar, Son of Late Ram Prasad Lal Yadav, Resident of Rukmani Chambers, Salimpur Ahra, Exhibition Road, P. S. Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Advocate With Mr. Amish Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Reena Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 06-12-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

This application has been filed seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to Opposite party No.2 by the learned Sessions Judge, Patna by an order, dated 02.06.2016, who is an accused in Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 62 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341,302,201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The petitioner is the informant of this case and Opposite party No.2, is his full brother. The deceased was the mother of the two.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that despite there being strong

circumstance to indicate that it was Opposite party No.2 who had played an important role in killing of the deceased, learned Court below by the said order, dated 02.06.2016 granted Opposite Party No.2 the privilege of anticipatory bail. According to him, considering the gravity of the offence and the fact that the accused is own son of the deceased, he should not have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.

5. I have perused the order, dated 02.06.2016 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, whereby the Opposite party No.2 has been granted anticipatory bail mainly on the ground that implication of Opposite party No.2 was based on suspicion. There is nothing on record to suggest that after having been released on bail, the Opposite party No.2 has ever misused the privilege of bail.

6. I do not find it to be a fit case for cancellation of bail granted to Opposite party No.2.

7. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) ArunKumar/- U