Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40704/2017rejected

Krishna Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

2017-09-21Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.40704 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -24 Year- 2017 Thana -PALI District- JEHANABAD ======================================================

1. Krishna Yadav, Son of late Lalo Singh

2. Suchit Yadav, Son of Krishna Yadav, Both are resident of VillageChanaura, Police Station- Kinjar in the district of Arwal. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Navin Sharma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. i Upendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in Pali P.S. Case No.24 of 2017 instituted for the offences under Sections 307. 302, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

As per First Information Report while informant was moving around his top roof of his house, his brother, Binesh Yadav, came and resorted firing but bullet did not hit. He started fleeing away from there. His wife in order to save him followed and brother has also followed after his wife. Near the house of Ramatar Thakur the wife of the informant was caught by the petitioners whereafter his brother Binesh came and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.40704 of 2017 (2) dt.21-09-2017 opened firing on that account his wife has died. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two empty cartridges have been found at the top of the roof of his house. There is always possibility of false implication on account of the fact that both petitioners happened to be father-inlaw and mother-in-law of the main accused but First Information Report itself discloses the role of the petitioners. In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly the prayer for bail is rejected.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Vinay/- U T