Sintu Yadav @ Satyendra Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.15344 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -123 Year- 2015 Thana -LODIPUR District- BHAGALPUR ======================================================

1. Sintu Yadav @ Satyendra Yadav S/o Suggan Yadav Resident of Village - Babupur, P.S.- Sabour, District - Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N. K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s: Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh (APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 16-05-2016 Heard both sides.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case under Section 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Sri N. K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and the informant has very categorically named the accused persons and suspected that they might have killed his brother on account of land dispute and also for the reason that his brother was having affairs with the sister of Amarjit Kumar. During the course of investigation the name of the petitioner figured in the so-called exculpatory confessional statement of co-accused Amarjit Kumar in paragraph 45 of the case diary. Save and except the confessional statement of co-accused, there is no other material to show involvement of the petitioner even the SIM card does not

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15344 of 2016 (3) dt.16-05-2016 2/2 belong to the petitioner.

It appears that at the time of killing of the deceased two mobile Nos. were used. One of the SIM card was issued in the name of Amarjit Kumar whereas the other was issued in the name of Naziruddin, resident of Khagaria district and when Amarjit was arrested he disclosed that he along with this petitioner and others killed the deceased. Amarjit also disclosed that he gave the SIM to the petitioner from which the call was made to the mobile of deceased at many times on the date of occurrence. Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegations made against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

The petitioner, if so advised, may surrender in the court below, i.e., learned Additional Chief Judicial MagistrateIV, Bhagalpur in Lodipur P.S. case No. 123/2015, and the court below shall consider the prayer for regular bail without being prejudiced from the order of this court.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) BKS/- U T