Allowed

Maheshwar Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Jun 2019CR. MISC./8539/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed bail to the petitioner for murder conspiracy offences, conditioning release on the framing of charges by the trial court and furnishing a bail bond with sureties. The court directed the trial court to protect threatened witnesses and cooperate regarding witnesses facing threats from the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Bail to be released only after framing of charges upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties and complying with trial court instructions.

Maheshwar Yadav Vs the State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8539 of 2019

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-574 Year-2017 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBegusarai

¶3

======================================================

¶4

MAHESHWAR YADAV, Son of Ram Sharan Yadav, Resident of village – Matihani, P.S. Matihani, District Begusarai

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arbind Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anand Mohan Prasad Mehta ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶10

7 10-06-2019

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

¶12

Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 302 and 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

The FIR named accused persons allegedly took Sumit Kumar and later on, committed his murder. Sumit Kumar was recently released from jail after being acquitted in a criminal trial of a murder. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. During investigation, after more than a year, it revealed that the petitioner and Raju Jha gave Supari to Himanshu Kumar and Bikram Chaudhary to commit murder of the deceased. In the confessional statement of Raju Jha, name of the petitioner has surfaced. Himansu Kumar @ Nitin Bharti has already been

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8539 of 2019(7) dt.10-06-2019 2/3

¶15

allowed bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.09.2018 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 49702 of 2018 (Annexure 4 series at page 46 of the bail petition).

¶16

Learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that the FIR would reveal that the petitioner had supplied information to the informant that he had seen the deceased along with the named accused persons.

¶17

However, during investigation, it revealed on the basis of mobile location, that the petitioner was not near the place of occurrence at the time and on the date claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was under suspicion of the police and subsequently further material came against the petitioner that he had paid Rs.4,00,000/- (rupees four lacs) to the shooter of the deceased after withdrawing the money from the bank on 03.02.2018. The payment was made at the tea stall. The petitioner had remote motive commit the murder due to differences between the father and uncle of the deceased. Petitioner is in custody since 13.01.2019. He further submits that some of the witnesses have filed affidavit before the court below that the petitioner is threatening them not to depose during the trial, failing which the petitioner would commit murder.

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8539 of 2019(7) dt.10-06-2019 3/3

¶19

Considering the entire facts of this case and nature of material against the petitioner, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail only after framing of the charges against the petitioner on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Begusarai Muffasil Police Station Case No. 574 of 2017. The petitioner is directed to fully cooperate with the trial of the case, failing which the learned court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner. The trial court may provide police protection to the witnesses who are under threat of the petitioner and may pass necessary order which would be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶20

(Birendra Kumar, J)

¶21

Kundan/-

¶22

U T

Maheshwar Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maheshwar 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

Sumit Kumar @ Sumit @ Raju Vs The State of Bihar

Dayanand Sutihar @ Adyanand Sutihar @ Asia Sutihar Vs the State of Bihar

Bijendra Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Aleem Vs the State of Bihar

Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Yadava Vs the State of Bihar

Manoj Ram Vs The State of Bihar