Ranjeet Yadav @ Ranjit Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-582 Year-2021 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== RANJEET YADAV @ RANJIT YADAV Son of Madan Yadav R/o VillagePithahi, P.S.- Madhepura, District- Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shiva Shankar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-07-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, this petitioner alongwith other F.I.R. named accused persons killed the husband of the informant and also snatched Rs. 10,000/-.

It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that informant is not eye-witness of the occurrence and only on suspicion, petitioner has been made accused. During investigation, no material has come to show complicity of the petitioner in the aforesaid crime. It is further submitted that during investigation, the informant realized her fault and filed a petition/affidavit in the court of learned C.J.M., Madhepura (Annexure - 2), stating

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38 of 2022(2) dt.21-07-2022 2/2 therein that due to sudden demise of her husband, she was disturbed and named this petitioner in the fardbeyan. Petitioner has got clean antecedent.

However, learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the bail petition and submitted that from bare perusal of F.I.R., it is apparent that this petitioner took away the husband of the informant on the pretext of collecting money and thereafter, the husband of informant became traceless. Sufficient evidence has come against this petitioner during course of investigation to show his complicity in the crime.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and same is, accordingly, rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay/- U T