Dismissed

Sonu Yadav Alias Ajgar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Aug 2022B.A./4204/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail petitions filed by persons accused of attempt to murder and armed possession were rejected. The High Court found direct allegations of accidental/firing upon the victim and noted the trial is likely to conclude within six months, deeming bail inappropriate at present.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail was rejected. Petitioners are at liberty to renew the prayer after six months if trial is not concluded.

Sonu Yadav Alias Ajgar Yadav Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B.A. No. 4204 of 2022

¶3

Sonu Yadav @ Ajgar Yadav …… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand ……Opposite party

¶6

With

¶7

B.A. No. 4127 of 2022

¶8

Abhay Yadav

¶9

Sanjay Yadav @ Bachu Yadav …… Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Jharkhand ……Opposite party

¶12

----------

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶14

-----

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.

¶16

Order No.07/ Dated:17.08.2022

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

The petitioners have been made accused in connection with Borio (J) P.S. Case No. 365 of 2021, registered for the offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sahibganj.

¶19

As per F.I.R. allegation is that on 28.11.2021 at about 4.35 p.m. informant was returning from his field meanwhile due to land dispute present petitioner and other accused persons surrounded the informant and

¶20

started indiscriminately opening fire. The informant has sustained bullet injury which is opined to be dangerous to life.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence at all as alleged in the F.I.R. There is no direct allegation of opening firearm against the petitioners rather there is general and omnibus allegation of indiscriminate opening of fire arms against all the named accused persons. It is further submitted that 5 witnesses have been examined, who have given contradictory statement about the number of firearm injuries caused to the informant and hence, not reliable witnesses. The petitioners are languishing in Judicial custody since 28.12.2021 without rhymes and reasons. Petitioners undertake to cooperate in the trial of the case by remaining physically present as and when required and shall not indulge in any manner in tampering with the prosecution evidence or influencing the witnesses of prosecution or intimidate them, hence, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

¶22

Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are notorious criminals and they are threatening to witnesses and informant, so that he could not adduce his evidence. There are serious allegation against the petitioners for attempting to commit murder of the informant by firing at him but fortunately he was saved. Trial is likely to be concluded in near future, hence, petitioners may not be admitted to bail.

¶23

Considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of record, it appears that there is direct allegation of indiscriminate firing upon the informant by the present petitioners and his other associates. Informant has sustained bullet injuries and undergone treatment at higher centres. Learned trial court has submitted status report of the case which shows that out of 14 witnesses cited in the charge sheet, 5 witnesses have been examined and rest witnesses are to be examined and tentative time to conclude the trial is within six months.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons and also in the interest of smooth trial of the case, I don’t feel inclined to admit the petitioners on bail at present stage of the proceeding, which stands rejected.

¶25

However, petitioners are at liberty to renew their prayer for bail after six months from the date of this order, if trial is not concluded within that period, if so advised.

¶26

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶27

R.K.

Sonu Yadav Alias Ajgar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Yadav Alias Ajgar Yadav v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Antu Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramdev Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjeet Sagar Alias Sanjit Sagar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Saptamjeet Bagti Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mangaram Swarnkar Alias Magaram Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bishal Kumar Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand