Sharad Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73624 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-249 Year-2023 Thana- BARAHAT District- Banka ====================================================== Sharad Yadav Son of DhanushDhari Yadav Resident of Village- Mirzapur, PSBarahat, Distt.- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 05-02-2025 Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP representing the State.
2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Barahat P.S. Case No. 249 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act, lodged on 30.10.2023 by the informant, Kapildev Raut.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that while the petitioner was constructing house at his land, upon objection, came armed variously and assaulted causing serious injury on the head beside injuries given to his son. As the informant was going towards the Police Station, the accused persons resorted to firing but upon arrival of the Police, escaped. This led to the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has no role to play in the matter, the allegation is omnibus though he
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73624 of 2024(3) dt.05-02-2025 2/2 concede that he has criminal antecedent and has remained in custody since 09.08.2024 (paragraph no.10 of the petition).
5. Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP representing the State opposes the prayer and has taken this Court to learned Sessions Judge Order to show that the injury on the head has been found to be grievous, the petitioner was grabbing the land of the informant and constructing house and upon objection assaulted. Further, though the F.I.R. was lodged in the month of October 2023, he chose to walk into judicial custody only in the month of August 2024.
6. Considering the submission put forward by the parties as also the fact that allegation is that firstly he was constructing house on the land of the informant, later upon objection, resorted to severe assault causing injury on the head. The omnibus allegation cannot exonerate petitioner of the charges of he being the creator of the entire episode which resulted into grievous injury to the informant side, in that background, for the present this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail petition stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U T