An oral order dismissing an application for anticipatory bail. The court denied relief due to a serious direct allegation of causing the deceased's death with a dagger, distinguishing the petitioner's role from that of another co-accused who had been granted bail.
The application for anticipatory bail is dismissed.
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.15367 of 2014
====================================================== Binod Yadav, son of late Basudeo Yadav, resident of Mohalla, Barmasia, Police Station and District, Katihar .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Rama Nand Poddar For the State : Dr. Indiwar Kumari, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER
2 28-05-2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the allegation in the first information report, petitioner along with Rajesh Yadav has given dagger blow upon the back of the son of the informant due to which he had sustained injuries and had died. Learned counsel submits that Tuntun Rai has already been granted bail by this Court. However, in my considered opinion, case of the petitioner is different from the Tuntun Rai as there is no allegation of any assault upon the coaccused, Tuntun Rai who had allegedly forcibly held the hand of the deceased only but the petitioner along with co-accused Rajesh Yadav had given a dagger blow causing death of Dipak Yadav. It
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15367 of 2014 (2) dt.28-05-2014
2 / 2
is submitted that during the course of the investigation two independent witnesses have stated that only Rajesh Yadav had given a dagger blow and later on Binod Yadav came at the place of occurrence and took away Rajesh Yadav who happens to be his relative. Thus, it is contended that the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the informant that the petitioner has given a dagger blow.
However, in view of the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner in the first information report of giving dagger blow and admittedly three injuries have admittedly been found in the postmortem report, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to this petitioner.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)
Sanjay-II/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a petitioner accused of giving a dagger blow causing death in a murder case.
Whether the difference between the petitioner's role and that of another co-accused who was previously granted bail warrants a different outcome.
Binod Yadav
The State of Bihar
Ravi Ranjan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
