Vinod Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69885 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-343 Year-2020 Thana- UDAKISHUNGANJ DistrictMadhepura ====================================================== VINOD YADAV Son of Late Jeevan Yadav R/V- Khara, Ward No. 4, P.S- Uda Kishunganj, Dist- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-07-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 28.08.2022 in connection with Udakishunganj P.S. Case No.343/2020, F.I.R. dated 11.11.2020, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 354B, 504, 379, 427, 337, 506 of the IPC.

According to prosecution case, the petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the brother-in-law of the informant on the instigation of Manoj Yadav.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69885 of 2022(4) dt.06-07-2023 2/3 allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated. As per allegation against the petitioner that on the instruction of Manoj Yadav, the petitioner gave Dabiya blow on the head of the informant. He further submits that there is case and counter case between the parties and both sides sustained injury. He further submits that the injury report of the injured namely Ranjan Kumar Singh suggest that the informant has sustained two injuries. Injury no.1 is grievous in nature and the injury no.2 is simple in nature. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 28.08.2022. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M.- I, Udakishunganj in connection with Udakishunganj P.S. Case No. 343/2020, subject to the following conditions:-

1. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69885 of 2022(4) dt.06-07-2023 3/3 and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

2. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

3. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) amit/- U T