Jitendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56132 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2019 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== Jitendra Yadav Son of Panuk Yadav Resident of Village - Beside Banmankhi Bus Stand, Police Station- Banmankhi, District - Purnea. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in Murliganj PS Case No. 100 of 2019 dated 19.03.2019 instituted under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner and other unknown is of killing the son of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present is only a case of last seen as nobody is witness to the petitioner killing the son of the informant. It was submitted that the witnesses have also stated that the deceased was seen with Ritlal Yadav and Kailash Yadav and one other person on the same night when he is said to have left the house

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.56132 of 2019 dt.18-12-2019 2/2 of the petitioner and, thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner was the culprit. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner lives 50 kilometres away from the house of the deceased in the district of Purnea and has no criminal antecedent being in custody since 24.03.2019.

5. Learned APP submitted that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he was the person who had taken away the deceased with him on the fateful night after which neither did he return nor anything is known about him. It was submitted that the petitioner not having any explanation as to what happened after he had gone from the house of the informant along with the deceased is itself a strong indicator that the petitioner was involved in the entire episode and had full knowledge of the same.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed. (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Anjani/- AFR/NAFR U T