Neeraj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.51425 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-153 Year-2016 Thana- KASIMBAZAR District- Munger ====================================================== Neeraj Yadav son of Late Umesh Yadav @ Umesh Kumar Yadav, resident of Mohalla-Lal Darwaja, P.S.- Kotwali, District-Munger. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Chittranjan Sinha, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Karuna Nath Sahay, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 03-10-2018 Heard Sri Chittranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Karuna Nath Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

This is the second attempt for grant of bail on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody since 22-11-2016 in Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 153 of 2016, corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 244 of 2017, registered for the offence under Sections 302/34/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Recently only on 04-05-2018, the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on two grounds: firstly, on the basis of seriousness of accusation and secondly, considering the fact that the petitioner was accused in number of cases. Of course,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51425 of 2018(3) dt.03-10-2018 2/3 on last occasion, it was noticed that out of three cases, petitioner was already acquitted in two cases, even then this Court rejected the prayer for bail. Without any change of circumstances, the present petition has been filed. Sri Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner tried to persuade the Court that some of the accused persons in similar circumstances were granted bail by another Bench of this Court, even after rejecting the prayer of bail of this petitioner.

I have examined the said orders, which have been brought on record as Annexures 6 and 7 series. However, on examination of the orders, it is evident that while other accused persons were extending the privilege of bail, the order of rejection of bail of this petitioner was not brought to the notice of the said Bench.

Moreover, besides seriousness of the accusation, on the ground of criminal antecedent of this petitioner, the prayer for bail was rejected. It has been admitted by learned senior counsel that in this case, charge has already been framed. Meaning thereby that trial has already commenced. Since trial has already commenced, there is no reason to entertain the prayer for bail.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.51425 of 2018(3) dt.03-10-2018 3/3 The petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) nawalkrs/- U T