Parshu Ram Kumar Yadav @ Prashuram Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.2410 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -376 Year- 2017 Thana -TEKARI District- GAYA ===========================================================

1. Parshu Ram Kumar Yadav @ Prashuram Yadav,

2. Shiv Pujan Yadav @ Shipujan Yadav @ Sipujan Yadav Both are Sons Shiya Sharan Yadav, R/o Vill.- Matai, P.S.- Tekari (Panchanpur), District- Gaya. .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Manish Kumar No.2, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, SPP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 30-08-2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Appellant Parshu Ram Kumar Yadav @ Prashuram Yadav has already been arrested in this case. Hence, his prayer for anticipatory bail is dismissed as infructuous. This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 26.05.2018 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Gaya, in A.B.P. No.104 of 2018, arising out of Tekari Police Station Case No.376 of 2017, registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(i)(r)(s)/2(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The FIR would reveal that murder of the wife of the

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2410 of 2018 dt.30-08-2018 P3/2 informant was committed by some unknown person. The informant suspected that appellant and other family members might have committed murder for the reason that they had taken loan of Rs.15,000/- from the wife of informant at the time of marriage of a daughter in their family and subsequently they were not refunding the money in spite of repeated demand.

Submission is that there is no eyewitness of the occurrence. Even the impugned order would reveal that mere suspicion is there. Appellant is an accused in a case of trivial nature as disclosed in para-3 of the memo of appeal. Considering the facts aforesaid, let the appellant Shiv Pujan Yadav @ Shipujan Yadav @ Sipujan Yadav, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court-below where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as condition that the appellant shall fully cooperate with the investigation/trial of the case, failing which the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the appellant.

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2410 of 2018 dt.30-08-2018 P3/3 Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal stands allowed.

(Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date01.09.2018 Transmission Date 01.09.2018