Single judge orally rejected bail application for petitioner in case involving offences under Sections 392, 412 IPC and Arms Act, citing serious allegations, investigation materials, and pending cases.
Prayer for bail is rejected.
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.21769 of 2016
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -222 Year- 2014 Thana -LAXMIPUR District- JAMUI ====================================================== Sunil Yadav son of Dwarika Yadav, resident of village - Kudila, P.S.Gidhaur, District - Jamui .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Duresh Nandan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 20-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No.192 of 2015 arising out of Laxmipur P.S. Case No.222 of 2014 registered under Sections 392 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code and also Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
Regard being had to the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, materials collected against him during investigation and large number of criminal cases pending against him, I am not inclined to grant him bail. Accordingly, prayer for bail is rejected.
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)
Md.S./-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to grant bail to the petitioner given the serious nature of allegations and pending cases.
Sunil Yadav
The State of Bihar
Ashwani Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
