Raman Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.16583 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -243 Year- 2016 Thana -SAHARSA District- SAHARSA ====================================================== Raman Kumar Yadav, Son of Badri Prasad Yadav, Resident of VillageMangrauni, P.S.- Mahishi, District- Saharsa, at present Mohalla- Batraha, P.S. and District- Saharsa.

.... .... Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr.

For the State : Mr.

For the Informant : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER -------------- 29-06-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Saharsa (Sadar) P.S. Case No.243 of 2016 (G.R. No.694 of 2016) registered under Sections 341, 384, 386, 387 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Saharsa. The accusation is that in the evening of 23.03.2016, the informant was talking with his friends, namely, Rahul Kumar and Akhilesh Kumar. At that time, this petitioner alongwith co-accused Saket Yadav came there on a motorcycle and, thereafter, this petitioner started to make firing through pistol at them, then they started to flee away. In that course, one of the firing passed over the head of the

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.16583 of 2017 (5) dt.29-06-2017 2/2 informant but the life of the informant, anyhow, was saved. Thereafter, the petitioner and the co-accused Saket Yadav fled away saying that so long as Rs.1,00,000/- is not paid as ransom, they will be causing such type of incident. Earlier, the petitioner had also made demand of ransom regarding which Sadar P.S. Case No.605 of 2015 was also instituted by the Manager of Pragati Classes. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner and his associate Saket Yadav has falsely been implicated in this case. While the petitioner is accused in 12 cases, as detailed in paragraph-3 to this application, but out of them, in four cases, he has already been acquitted and in eight cases, the petitioner is on bail. The petitioner, in the present case, is in custody since 29.03.2016.

Having regard to the facts and the circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation as also considering the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail stands rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) P.S./- U T