Sajanma Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79339 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2019 Thana- BELDOUR District- Khagaria ====================================================== SAJANMA YADAV Son of Raghu Yadav Resident of Village-Dharhi, P.S.- Beldaur, District-Khagaria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mohammed Arif ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 16-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 120 B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

While the son of the informant went out from his house on a call made by one Juveda Khatoon, petitioner along with another co-accused person resorted firing upon him and he died. The bone of contention is said to be love affair of the deceased with one Ladli Pravin, daughter of Juveda Khatoon. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no such occurrence as alleged ever took place. He has been falsely implicated in this case due to dirty village politics.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79339 of 2019(4) dt.16-03-2020 2/2 There is no eye witness of the occurrence. The name of the petitioner has been surfaced in the present case as he happens to be friend of one co-accused Budin.

Per contra, learned APP for the State vehemently opposing the bail petition submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of resorting firing upon the deceased and he died. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of case and particularly considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender before the learned Court below within six weeks from today and seek regular bail and the learned Court below would pass order on the same very date in accordance with law without being prejudiced by this order.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.) Trivedi/- U T