Lakhan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.67099 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1 Year-2018 Thana- DHIBRA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Lakhan Yadav, S/o Late Chandra Yadav, Resident of Village- Golha Tole, Dhurandih, P.S.- Dhibra, District- Aurangabad (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bhaskar Shankar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sri Dashrath Mehta ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 27-11-2018 Heard the parties.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Sessions trial No.212 of 2018/351 of 2018 arising out of Dhibra P.S.Case no.1 of 2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 307, 341, 342, 323, 325, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Allegation against the petitioner and other accused persons of assault by lathi and danda indiscriminately to the deceased.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no specif allegation has been attributed against the petitioner. He is in custody since 21.3.2018. It is further submitted that another co accused Uday Yadav prayed for bail which has been considered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.67099 of 2018(2) dt.27-11-2018 2/2 and it has been disposed of vide order dated 16.7.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No.28187 of 2018 with observation that he may renew his prayer for bail after framing of the charge or after completion of six months in custody from today and the prayer for bail of Mukhdeo Yadav has been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 11.10.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No.55950 of 2018.

Heard learned A.P.P. also.

Having heard both sides and in view of the facts and circumstances, as stated above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of the charge. With the aforesaid observation, this application is dismissed.

(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/- U T