Hon'ble Justice Sudhir Singh rejected an application for anticipatory bail in a FIR under various IPC and Arms Act sections, noting pending cases against the petitioner and refusal to grant relief pending surrender and prayer for regular bail.
Anticipatory bail rejected; petitioner to surrender and pray for regular bail.
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.65873 of 2018
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2011 Thana- DUMARIYA District- Gaya
======================================================
Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Yadav Jee son of Bishu Yadav, resident of village Khardag, P.S. Dumariya, District Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER
2 31-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dumariya P.S. case No.72 of 2011 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 427, 307, 506, 504 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, pending in the court of S.D.J.M., Sherghati (Gaya).
The prosecution case, in short, is that on 04.12.2011 during Cobra operation there was firing and counter firing among police party and extremists and several empty cartridges were recovered and the petitioner was also involved in the occurrence.
It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the there is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.65873 of 2018(2) dt.31-10-2018 2/2
against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. In course of occurrence, the accused persons are alleged to have taken the name of this petitioner and others. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in the present case. None claims to have identified the petitioner at the time of occurrence. No specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner nor any specific injury is attributed against the petitioner.
On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. There are six criminal cases pending against him.
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The same is rejected.
If the petitioner surrenders before the court below and prays for regular bail, same shall be considered on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
Narendra/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to avoid apprehension of arrest in the present criminal proceeding.
Whether the petitioner has valid grounds claiming false implication and lack of substantive evidence against him.
Vijay Yadav @ Vijay Yadav Jee
Sudhir Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
