Chandan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58682 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-93 Year-2023 Thana- RUPAULI District- Purnia ====================================================== Chandan Yadav, S/O- Prayag Yadav, Village- Jungal Tola, P.S.- Rupauli Mohanpur District- Purnea ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mohammed Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 13-09-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. on behalf of the State.

2. The instant application for regular bail has been filed by the petitioner in connection with Rupauli (Mohanpur) P.S. Case No. 93 of 2023 instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323, 386, 364(A), 506, 427, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he shot fire on the tire of the harvester and he along with the other accused persons assaulted the driver and khalasi of the said harvester and also kidnapped them for ransom of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the owner of the harvester.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58682 of 2024(3) dt.13-09-2024 2/2 present case. He has further submitted that the petitioner is in jail custody since 29.05.2023 and charge-sheet has already been filed. He further submits that co-accused namely Bechan Singh has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 19.01.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 83453 of 2023.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is accused in 11 cases of heinous offence including under Sections 302, 307, and 366 A of the IPC and Section 25(1-B)A, 26 and 27 of the Arms Act. There is direct allegation against the petitioner of kidnapping and damaging the tyres of harvester by gunshot.

6. In view of the facts that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of fire, kidnapping and demand of ransom from the owner of the harvester coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a habitual criminal involved in 11 cases of henious crimes, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for regular bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) khushbu/- U T