This judgment grants bail to the petitioner in a murder and firearms case. The court noted that witnesses did not specifically identify the petitioner as having fired the fatal shot, leading to the release on bail with sureties.
Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bonds of Rs. 10,000 and sureties to the satisfaction of the Adhoc A.D.J.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10471 of 2014
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -61 Year- 2012 Thana -CHANDRADEEP District- JAMUI ====================================================== Rambilash Yadav, S/O Dwarika Yadav, resident of Village- Tetariya, P.S. Chandradeep, District- Jamui. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. For the Opposite Party : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL ORDER
5. 22-07-2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in S.T. No. 94 of 2013 arising out of Chandradeep P.S. Case No. 61 of 2012 dated 24.09.2012 instituted under Sections 307/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of The Arms Act, 1959.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
though he is named in the F.I.R. and is alleged to have fired on the neck region of the deceased but the same is incorrect. It is submitted that during trial the informant has not taken the name of the petitioner either of being present at the time of occurrence or the person who has fired on the deceased and rather it has been stated that another co-accused Bablu Singh had fired on the deceased resulting in his death. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was present in the Court room but the informant has not identified him. It is submitted that the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10471 of 2014 (5) dt.22-07-2014
2/2
petitioner has also filed an application before the Superintendent of Police a few days prior to the date of incident in which he had raised apprehension with regard to the officer in-charge of the concerned Police Station implicating him in false cases. It is further submitted that other witnesses who have been examined have not made any specific allegation of the petitioner firing on the deceased.
Learned A.P.P., upon going through the case diary, does not dispute the fact that the witnesses examined during investigation have not specified the petitioner as an assailant who had fired on the deceased.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsels for the parties, let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Adhoc A.D.J.- IVth, Jamui in S.T. No. 94 of 2013 arising out of Chandradeep P.S. Case No. 61 of 2012. The petitioner shall cooperate in the trial and be present before the Court on each and every date. Failure to do so on two consecutive dates, without sufficient cause, shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
Anand Kr.
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite allegations of firing on the deceased.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rambilash Yadav
The State of Bihar
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
