Chandrahash Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65063 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2023 Thana- BAHADURPUR District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Chandrahash Yadav S/O Sri Gartu Yadav R/O Village- Taralhi, P.SBahadurpur, Distt.- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur Mrs.Vaishnavi Singh For the State :

Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 03-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Bahadurpur P.S. Case No. 216 of 2023 instituted for the offence under Sections 302, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, the petitioner along with three co-accused persons are said to have shot dead the cousin of the informant. The informant also sustained injury in the said incident.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case. According to the prosecution case, co-accused Garthu Yadav firstly fired upon the head of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65063 of 2023(3) dt.03-01-2024 2/2 deceased by his pistol due to which he died. It is also submitted that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 23.5.2023.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR who also along with co-accused Abhinash Yadav, Abhinandan Yadav and Garthu Yadav has specifically been alleged to fire upon the deceased Ravi Singh due to which he died. Postmortem report corroborates the prosecution case in which seven entry & seven exit wound have been mentioned which were caused by firearm. It is also submitted that the witnesses of this case have supported the prosecution version.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) Amandeep/- U T