Jai Jai Ram Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62294 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-329 Year-2021 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger ====================================================== JAI JAI RAM YADAV, Son of Late Mahavir Yadav, Resident of Village - Tikarampur (Bihari Marar Tola, Police Station - Muffasil, District - Munger. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 06-02-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Session Trial No. 223 of 2022 arising out of Munger Muffasil P.S. Case No. 329 of 2021 registered under Sections 147, 302, 384 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27 and 35 of the Arms Act. Informant has alleged that accused persons, including the petitioner, have raised obstruction in construction of a culvert for coercing the payment of protection money.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that specific allegation of assault by firearm, is against co-accused Santosh Yadav. As regards other accused persons, including the petitioner, there is allegation that subsequently they have indiscriminately fired upon the victim. The said allegation is only to rope in other accused persons, including the petitioner. Considering
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62294 of 2022(3) dt.06-02-2023 2/3 the fact that the firearm injury is attributed against co-accused Santosh, this Court has granted anticipatory bail to one co-accused Majjo Yadav in Cr. Misc. No. 10408 of 2022 and regular bail to one co-accused, namely, Prabin Yadav, in Cr. Misc. No. 55195 of 2022. The allegation, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, is one and the same. The petitioner's implication is on account of his antecedents, though he has no role to play in the instant case. He is in custody since 01.04.2022. Investigation is complete.
Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the rival submissions, claim based on parity and period of custody as also the fact that investigation is complete, this Court for the purposes of grant of bail is inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the petitioner's counsel. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed. Let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-III, Munger, in Session Trial No. 223 of 2022 arising out of Munger Muffasil P.S. Case No. 329 of 2021, subject to the following conditions:- (i) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner. The bailor will also undertake to inform the Court if
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62294 of 2022(3) dt.06-02-2023 3/3 there is any change in the address of the petitioner. (ii) That the petitioner will be well represented on each date and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail bond will be liable to be cancelled. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) SUMIT/- U T