Manoj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54330 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-1999 Thana- KORANSARAI District- Buxar ====================================================== MANOJ YADAV Son of Late Jai Govind Yadav Resident of Village - Basgitiya, P.S.- Koransarai, Distt.- Buxar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, Adv.

Mr. Kamal Deo Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Indu Kumari Srivastava ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 17-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 395, 397, 396 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation in the FIR, while the informant with his sister and mother were at his home, 10-12 miscreants entered into the house by breaking the door and asked to produce the licensed gun otherwise they will shoot them then informant with a fear of loot of gun, he went inside the bedroom and closed the door where gun was kept. Accused persons started wrangling with his mother and sister and opened fire as a result of which informant's mother got injured and fell in the courtyard.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54330 of 2022(4) dt.17-02-2023 2/2 named in the FIR. No specific allegation is attributed against the petitioner. Both parties are co-villagers and admitted land dispute is going on between the parties. Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 17.08.2022. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant and petitioner is indulged in the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that statement of the informant's sister recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. in which she has stated that petitioner in connivance with other accused fired upon her mother (deceased).

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 and conclude the trial.

However, if the trial of the petitioner is not concluded within a period of six months, he would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U