Atmaram Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74404 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-866 Year-2017 Thana- KHAGARIA District- Khagaria ====================================================== ATMARAM YADAV Son of Late Indradev Yadav Resident of villageBarkhandi Tola, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Chandan Kumar Kashyap For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Raj Kishor Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 17-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 447, 323, 385, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The allegation against the petitioner along with others is of firing upon the vital part of the informant due to which he sustained injury and became unconscious. It is further alleged that the petitioner as well as others co-accused was demanding ransom of Rs.50,000/- then he would be allowed to irrigate his land. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He has committed no offence. He submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the alleged occurrence and he has implicated in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74404 of 2022(3) dt.17-04-2023 2/2 present case due to previous enmity. He is languishing in judicial custody since 27.06.2022.

Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the application for bail and submitted that from the perusal of injury report, it appears that the informant sustained gun-shot injury on left side of back chest and the injury opined by doctor is grievous in nature caused by fire arms. There is direct allegation of firing is against the petitioner and during investigation all the witnesses also supported the prosecution case. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) arish/- U T