Pappu Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65519 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2016 Thana- BIBHUTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Pappu Yadav, Son of Bidan Yadav @ Bido Yadav, Resident of Village-Karakh Badia, P.S-Bibhutipur, District-Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Saket Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Abhay Kumar Roy, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 17-12-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel representing the informant as also learned A.P.P. for the State.
Petitioner in the present case is seeking regular bail in connection with Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 186 of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR is against unknown. The son of the informant had gone missing since 05.08.2016 and his dead body was found on 10.08.2016 near the bank of river hanging with a tree. The informant expressed his suspicion saying that his son seems to have been killed by unknown persons and his dead body was hanged.
2/4 In course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of independent witnesses. The witnesses have not taken name of this petitioner and some of the witnesses have rather stated that they had seen the deceased on 05.08.2016 with the three accused namely, Manoj Mahto, Ram Kailash Mahato and Arjun Yadav. The son of the informant was, therefore, not seen with this petitioner even by any of the witnesses. The informant in his restatement expressed suspicion saying that this petitioner was involved in sale of illicit liquour and perhaps the son of the informant had seen the liquour stored in a field from where the liquour had gone missing and, therefore, this petitioner had a suspicion that the son of the informant had taken away the illicit liquour. Save and except this allegation, no other material has come in the case diary to implicate this petitioner.
Learned counsel for the informant has while opposing the bail application also admitted to this effect that prior to this case the petitioner had no criminal antecedent and the two cases which have been lodged under the Bihar Excise Act against this petitioner are of the year 2018 and 2019 which are much after the alleged occurrence of the year 2016.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
3/4 where the petitioner is in custody since 04.07.2019, in the case diary no witness has come forward to say that the deceased was seen with this petitioner on the alleged date and the name of the persons with whom he was seen has been specifically disclosed by those witnesses, the investigation against the petitioner is complete, charge-sheet filed and there being no submission that the release of this petitioner on bail is likely to influence the course of trial either by tampering with evidence or influencing the witnesses, let the petitioner above named be released on bail in connection with Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 186 of 2016 on furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 15,000/- (fifteen thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M.
1st Rossera, Samastipur, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 437 (3) Cr.P.C.
4/4 disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) vats/ved U T