In a bail application arising from an alleged murder case, the High Court refused bail. The court noted evidence of the petitioner's conversation with co-accused, recovery of stolen items, and fingerprints on evidence.
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.32924 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -528 Year- 2016 Thana -KOTWALI District- PATNA
======================================================
Bhushan Yadav, son of Bachchu Yadav, resident of Village- Karhara, Police Station- Ghoshi, District- Jehanabad.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. B.K.Sinha, Sr.Advocate with
Ms. Madhuri Lata, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Smt Pushpa Sinha, APP
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER
3 03-08-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This is an application for bail in connection with Kotwali P.S.Case No. 528 of 2016, G.R.No. 7041 of 2016, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 396, 394, 302 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code.
Petitioner is not named in the FIR and from perusal of the impugned order that there are confessional statements of coaccused persons. Furthermore, there is recovery of cash and ornaments from the possession of the petitioner and other accused persons.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case as if he would have been involved in committing the murder he would not have
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.32924 of 2017 (3) dt.03-08-2017
2/2
been found present in his house and so far recovery of cash and ornaments is concerned, the same have been recovered from other accused persons and finger prints also shows the same and petitioner is in custody for nine months.
Heard learned APP also.
Having heard both sides and from perusal of record it appears that in CDR location it is found that petitioner was talking with other accused persons and from other accused persons ornaments were recovered and from possession of petitioner cash has been recovered, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Prayer for bail is rejected.
However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the
trial of the petitioner.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J)
spal/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving offences under Sections 396, 394, 302 and 411 IPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bhushan Yadav
State of Bihar
Vinod Kumar Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
