Dharmendra Kumar @ Keshav Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59161 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-399 Year-2021 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura ====================================================== Dharmendra Kumar @ Keshav Yadav Son of Umesh Yadav R/v- Naulakhi, P.S.- Jankinagar, District- Purnia ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Ms. Rina Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 05-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, if any, within a period of four weeks from today.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 399 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

According to prosecution case, all the miscreants tried to snatch the amount from Sunil Kumar Keshari who is sitting inside the bolero pick up vehicle and on protest, one of the miscreant fired on him and then all the miscreants fled away. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59161 of 2022(5) dt.05-04-2023 2/2 petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case on the basis of suspicion. He further submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and it is not clear from the F.I.R. that who fired upon the deceased. He further submits that till date no T.I.P. has been conducted by the prosecution. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the material available on record as well as case diary has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that it transpire from the F.I.R. itself that the petitioner has fired upon the deceased and the deceased had died. He further submits that petitioner carries two criminal antecedents other than the present one.

Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 399 of 2021 pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura. Prayer is refused.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T