Dismissed

Subhash Chandra Yadav @ Subhash Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC22 Jul 2014CR. MISC./7957/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under IPC sections 363, 364, and 34, the Patna High Court refused to enlarge the petitioner on bail due to strong motives involving land disputes and prior violence, while directing the court below to expedite the trial.

What did the court decide?

The bail application stands dismissed. The court directed the trial to be concluded within nine months.

Subhash Chandra Yadav @ Subhash Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.7957 of 2014

¶2

Arising Out of P.S. Case No. -92 Year- 2013 Thana - LAUKHI District- MADHUBANI

¶3

====================================================== Subhash Chandra Yadav @ Subhash Yadav S/O Surya Narayan Yadav Resident Of Village- Saroja Bela, P.S.- Marauna, District- Supaul. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶4

ORAL ORDER

¶5

3 22-07-2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant, who has suo motu appeared.

¶6

The petitioner seeks bail in Laukahi P.S. Case No. 92 of 2013 dated 31.08.2013 instituted under Sections 363 / 364 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and only because he is the father-in-law of the person with whom there is said to be land dispute between the parties, he has been made accused. It is further submitted that the police also claimed that the petitioner has made confessional statement in which it is said that the petitioner was behind the conspiracy in abduction which, according to him, is inadmissible in law. It is submitted that no

¶8

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7957 of 2014 (3) dt.22-07-2014

¶9

2/2

¶10

other witness has either seen the petitioner or identified him.

¶11

Learned A.P.P., upon going through the case diary, and learned counsel for the informant submit that there is strong motive for the petitioner to have abducted the victim since he was wanting him to compromise with regard to the case in which the petitioner’s son-in-law is accused of firing on the younger brother of the victim and also there is land dispute.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

¶13

However, the court below shall expedite the trial and conclude the same within nine months.

¶14

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶15

Dilip.

¶16

U T

Subhash Chandra Yadav @ Subhash Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Chandra Yadav @ Subhash Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Niranjan Kumar @ Niraj Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar

Jitendra Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar

Md. Siraj Vs The State Of Bihar

Rambilash Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Dhananjay Kumar @ Dharmendra Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar