In a bail petition filed under Section 439 CrPC, the petitioner alleged that injuries were on non-vital parts. The court rejected the plea due to the deceased's categorical statement implicating all accused and prior rejections of bail for co-accused in the same case.
Prayer for grant of bail was 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.55282 of 2017
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2017 Thana- KAJRA District- Lakhisarai
====================================================== Rajo Yadav, Son of Nageshwar Yadav, Resident of Village- Punadih, P.S.Kajra, District- Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Sri Ajay Kumar Thakur Sri Kamal Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s : A.P.P. Sri Bhim Kumar Yadav ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER
2 17-11-2017
Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel, assisted by Sri Kamal Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as Sri Bhim Kumar Yadav, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the informant.
The petitioner, who is in custody since 28.02.2017 in Kajra P.S. Case No. 02 of 2017, registered for the offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325 & 307/504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “I.P.C.”) and later on Section 302 of the I.P.C. was added as well as under Section 27 of the Arms Act , 1959 has prayed for grant of bail.
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55282 of 2017(2) dt.17-11-2017 2/3
It was submitted by Sri Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner that except one injury on the person of the deceased all the injuries were given on non- vital part, which is evident from injury report as well as post- mortem examination report. He further submits that there is general and omnibus allegation and petitioner deserves privilege of bail. He relying on an order dated 11.09.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 41300 of 2017 (Annexure- 3) submits that at least one of the co -accused in similar circumstances has already been granted bail, and as such, this court even on the ground of parity may grant same relief to the petitioner. However , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that it is true that one of the coaccused has been granted bail , but fact remains that in similar circumstances prayer for bail of two co-accused namely Anish Yadav vide order dated 24.08.2017 in Cr. Misc. No. 28738 of 2017 and Bhopal Yadav vide order dated 19.09.2017 in Cr. Misc. No. 35098 of 2017 has already been rejected.
Be that as it may, since on perusal of the F.I.R. it is evident that F.I.R. was lodged on the fardbyan of injured, who subsequently died and in his fardbyan the deceased had categorically stated regarding participation of all the accused persons including the petitioner, in view of such accusation as
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.55282 of 2017(2) dt.17-11-2017 3/3
well as the fact that prayer for bail of some of the co-accused has already been rejected , there is no reason to entertain the prayer for bail.
The petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J)
praful/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a grant of bail given the severity of the offence and prior rejection of bail for other co-accused.
Rajo Yadav
The State of Bihar
Rakesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
