← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./28187/2018rejected

Uday Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

2018-07-16Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.28187 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -1 Year- 2018 Thana -DHIBRA District- AURANGABAD ====================================================== Uday Yadav, S/o Mukhdeo Yadav, Resident of Village - Golha Tola, Ghurandih, P.S. - Dhibra, District - Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Giri, Advocate For the O.P. No. 2 : Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-07-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 342, 325, 307, 504, 506 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

There is allegation against the five named person including the petitioner to have assaulted with lathi etc. to the informant and Sikeshwar Yadav as a result whereof he died during course of treatment. The Doctor has found multiple head injury on Sikeshwar Yadav which was cause of death.

Submission is that the petitioner is in custody since 12.01.2018. Allegation is not specific and the circumstances under which the occurrence took place would not show that the petitioner was having intention to commit murder.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.28187 of 2018 (4) dt.16-07-2018 2/2 The case diary would reveal that other eyewitnesses have also supported the allegation. Considering the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage in connection with Dhibra Police Station Case No. 01 of 2018 pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad/successor court.

Hence, prayer for bail is refused.

The petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer for bail after framing of the charge or after completion of six months of custody from today.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Kundan/- U T