Sonu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68209 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-224 Year-2021 Thana- DHANAHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== SONU YADAV son of Rupchandra Yadav @ Rupchand Village- Patlapur PsKhukhundu Dist- Dewariya U.P ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sarvan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 16-02-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. 2.
The present petition is by way of second attempt at the behest of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Dhanha P.S. Case No.224 of 2021, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, inasmuch as the earlier prayer of the petitioner for grant of regular bail was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2023, passed in Cr. Misc. No.50065 of 2022. 3.
The case of the prosecution, according
2/4 to the informant, is that on 23.12.2021, his son had gone to drop his son and daughter to their school, however, when he did not return, enquiry was made and the grandson of the informant, namely, Ranjeet Kumar Kushwaha revealed that two persons had forcibly taken the son of the informant in a sugarcane field where 10 other persons were present from before. Subsequently, the dead body of the son of the informant was recovered from the said sugarcane field of Dhananjay Singh and bullet injuries were found on the head and chest of the said deceased. It has also been alleged that the informant was a witness in the case of one Pitambar Thakur, hence he had been threatened by one Aakash Kushwaha, after he had come out from custody, whereafter he had conspired and killed the son of the informant.
4.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is languishing in custody since 07.07.2002 and there is no chance of conclusion of the trial in near future.
3/4 5.
Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner is a hardened criminal, inasmuch as he is an accused in seven other criminal cases and he has also ensured that the trial in the present case does not progress inasmuch as he keeps off switching from Uttar Pradesh Jail to Bihar Jail and vice versa, in the garb of appearing before the concerned Trial Court, in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It is also submitted that the earlier order of this Court dated 06.02.2023, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for grant of regular bail was rejected, would show that this Court had considered the materials available in the casediary at length and had found ample materials therein to show the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime. It is further submitted that the impugned order dated 28.07.2022, passed by the learned Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bagaha, West Champaran also demonstrates that ample materials are on record to show the
4/4 complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime. 6.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the materials available on record and taking into account the earlier order of this Court dated 06.02.2023, passed in Cr.Misc. No.50065 of 2022 as also the impugned order dated 28.07.2022, this Court finds that not only the petitioner is having a criminal history but also there are ample materials on record to prima facie show his complicity in the alleged crime, hence I do not find any reason to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner for grant of regular bail, thus the present petition stands dismissed, being bereft of any merit.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) kanchan/- U T