Yogendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51773 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-331 Year-2018 Thana- JHAJHA District- Jamui ====================================================== YOGENDRA YADAV, Aged about 50 years, Male, Son of Kailash Yadav, Resident of Village Chhapa, Korbadih, P.S. Jhajha, District Jamui. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Umesh Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 20-08-2019 Heard both sides.
Petitioner apprehends his arrest in Jhajha P.S. Case No.331 of 2018, registered under Section 307 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code. Later on Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added after death of the father of the informant. The informant alleged that his father had gone to graze cow in the field but Yogendra Yadav, the petitioner, Vishundeo Yadav, Mukesh Yadav, Laljiv Yadav and Manoj Yadav assaulted the father of the informant. When the informant went there, all the accused persons also assaulted the informant with lathi on his head and the informant also got injury in his head.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that of course five persons including the petitioner are named in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51773 of 2019(2) dt.20-08-2019 2/2 FIR but no specific allegation of assault is made against the petitioner. The petitioner also lodged Jhajha P.S. Case No.332 of 2018 making allegation against the informant and others. It is further submitted that in the postmortem report, the doctor opined the death due to intra-abdominal hemorrhage but it transpires that the father of the informant got many injuries on his body and on account of which the father of the informant died. The petitioner is also one of the assailants of the deceased. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U T