Santosh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.60957 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-75 Year-2017 Thana- SHANKARPUR District- Madhepura ====================================================== Santosh Yadav, Son of Tharu Yadav, Resident of Village- Raibheer Ward No.7, P.S.- Shankarpur, District- Madhepura.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Vinod Shankar Modi, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRIYA ORAL ORDER 22-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in Shankarpur P.S. Case No. 75 of 2017 instituted for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Counsel for the petitioner submits that occurrence is said to have taken place on 7.6.2017 and First Information Report has been lodged on 8.6.2017.

It is alleged in the written report that husband of the informant namely, Mantu Kumar went to Durga Mandir adjacent to the house of West direction, petitioner along with all accused persons as named in the written report variously armed came on Motorcycle and surrounded husband of the informant. It is further alleged that co-accused Ripusudan ordered to shoot

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.60957 of 2018(3) dt.22-11-2018 2/2 the husband of the informant, upon which co-accused Guddu Kumar fired shot with three-nutt which hit in the chest of husband of the informant. He fell down on the ground then petitioner fired with three-nutt also which hit in the abdomen of her husband. Thereafter, all the accused persons fled away towards northern direction by making firing. The informant with the help of villagers brought her husband to Sadar Hospital, Madhepura, for treatment where Doctor declared him dead. Case diary has been received.

Post mortem report is available in the case diary wherein the Doctor has found two firearm injuries, one on the chest and another on the stomach of the deceased. The post mortem report supports the allegation against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

Prayer for bail of the petitioner stands rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial. (Sanjay Priya, J) S.Ali/- U T