Ramcharan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70377 of 2018 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2011 Thana- SIKANDRA District- Jamui ====================================================== Ramcharan Yadav, S/o-Kapil Yadav, R/o Village-Ishuwa, P.S.-Sarsera, Dist.- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Dr. Rabindra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 16-05-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sikandra P.S. Case No. 225 of 2011, registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1b)A, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act. The accusation is that in the evening of 27.12.2011, Dinesh Ram, husband of the informant, Lalita Devi, who had criminal background, was called on mobile by Pankaj Dadhi saying that Bhushan Yadav is waiting at Tuladih More. Thereafter, her husband proceeded to meet with Bhushan Yadav. At about 8 P.M. in the night informant heard the sound of firing. Thereafter, she was informed by Gunja Devi about firing and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70377 of 2018(6) dt.16-05-2019 2/2 killing of her husband, Dinesh Ram. In the next morning, informant Lalita Devi went there and found the dead body of her husband sustaining several firearm injuries and one country made pistol was also lying there. The people, who were present there, told that her husband has been killed by Bhushan Yadav. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but in course of investigation, Bhushan Yadav was apprehended in Sikandra P.S. Case No. 115 of 2012 on 05.06.20102, in which, he confessed his guild and also disclosed the name of this petitioner as associate but no overt act has been attributed against the petitioner in his confessional statement.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the provisional bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 07.01.2019 stands confirmed.

Bhardwaj/- (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) U T