Navin Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4848 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2019 Thana- DARBHANGA SADAR DistrictDarbhanga ====================================================== NAVIN YADAV S/o Late Bhola Yadav Resident of Mohalla - Kabirchak, P.S. - Darbhanga Sadar, District - Darbhanga.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.

Munna Kumar son of Paean Paswan Resident of Gadhiya, P.S.- Sadar, District- Darbhanga ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Madhu Prasun, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Binay Krishna, Special P.P.

For the Respondent No.2:

Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 04-08-2022 1.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2/informant, on point of admission and on merit also.

2.

The appellant has preferred the present appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "SC/ST Act") against the refusal of prayer for bail vide order dated 20.11.2021 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cumSpecial Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Darbhanga in connection with Darbhanga Sadar P.S. Case No. 189 of

2/5 2019 registered under Sections 302 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(1) (g) of SC/ST Act.

3.

Present appeal is well within limitation as prescribed under Section 14A(3) of the Act.

4.

Notice has been issued to Respondent no.2, served upon and duly represented.

5.

The appellant is named in F.I.R. and is in custody since 09.10.2021.

6.

The allegation against the appellant is to commit murder of the grandfather of the informant along with other co-accused persons for previous land dispute, with further allegation that a threat was advanced in the year 2016, to vacate the disputed land by the appellant and other co-accused persons.

7.

Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that from bare perusal of FIR, it can be safely gathered that informant is not the eye-witness of the occurrence as he found the appellant and other co-accused persons running away from place of occurrence. It has further been submitted that occurrence is due to land dispute, and same is an admitted position. While traveling over the

3/5 argument learned senior counsel submitted that after investigation, the appellant has been exonerated but after court order, matter was re-investigated, this time chargesheet has been submitted against the appellant, even without any incriminating / fresh material. It is also submitted that it is also a reason to implicate the petitioner in the present case that he involved in 06 other criminal cases. It has further been submitted that nothing can be gathered from perusal of FIR, which may suggest atrocities within the meaning of the Act, against the appellant. While concluding the argument, it has been submitted that investigation has been completed, for which, charge-sheet has already been submitted, as such, there is no chance of tampering with the evidence. 8.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if insult is not caused to complainant/informant on the basis of caste, no case is made out under the Act, as it was held in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Parasram @ Purushottam, as reported in 2015 (153) AIC 276. 9.

Learned Special P.P. for the State duly assisted by learned counsel for the Respondent No.2/Informant, Sri Gajendra Kumar Jha, while opposing prayer for bail,

4/5 submitted that there is strong evidence against the appellant, as he was found running away by motorcycle, soon after the occurrence, but fairly conceded the fact that the informant is not the eyewitness of the occurrence. It has further been submitted that nature of injury, which is alleged to be caused by fire arms, is in full corroboration with the postmortem report of the deceased.

10.

In view of the submissions, as made above, as the informant is not the eye-witness of the present occurrence and nothing incriminating material surfaced during course of re-investigation, which may connect, prima-facie, the appellant with the present set of occurrence coupled with the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted, let the appellant, above named, is directed to be released on bail in connection with Darbhanga Sadar P.S. Case No. 189 of 2019 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Darbhanga/concerned court, subject to the following conditions:

"(i)That appellant shall not involve in the similar nature of offence till the conclusion of

5/5 trial, failing which, the State shall be at liberty to move before the Trial Court itself for the cancellation of bail bond of the appellant.

(ii) Accused/appellant shall cooperate in the trial and shall be physically present on each and every date before the Trial Court till conclusion of the trial and exemption from physical appearance be allowed by the Trial Court, only on medical ground of the appellant duly supported by the documents.

(iii) That one of the bailors shall be Chhote Lal Yadav, who is the own younger brother of the appellant and deponent of the present bail petition."

11.

Accordingly, impugned order dated 20.11.2021 is set aside.

12.

Hence, appeal stands allowed.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) S.Katyayan/- U T