Dismissed

Sukdeo Yadav @ Sukhdeo Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC23 Jun 2020CR. MISC./10552/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna dismissed an application for anticipatory bail. The court was unmoved by the petitioner's claim that he was hospitalized and not present, noting the direct allegation of firing and forensic evidence of a fatal firearm injury near the neck.

What did the court decide?

Application for grant of anticipatory bail dismissed; prayer for privilege of bail refused.

Sukdeo Yadav @ Sukhdeo Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Quashing and FIR | Patna HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10552 of 2020

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2018 Thana- GHOGHARDIHA District- Madhubani

¶3

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

¶4

SUKDEO YADAV @ SUKHDEO YADAV Son of Lakshman Yadav Resident of Village- Punchvinda, P.S.- Marauna, District- Supaul.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Hriday Narayan Harshit For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 23-06-2020 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State, through Video Conferencing.

¶12

This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Ghoghardiha Police Station Case No. 34 of 2018, disclosing offences under Sections 147/148/149/302/379/504/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶13

The allegation against the petitioner is that he fired upon the cousin brother of the informant, namely, Satya Narayan Yadav (deceased).

¶14

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that altogether 11 persons have been named in the First Information Report as accused persons. He submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he fired upon the deceased from his

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10552 of 2020(2) dt.23-06-2020 2/2

¶16

pistol near his temporal region, but from the post mortem examination report (Annexure 4), it is evident that there is fire arm injury near the neck of the deceased. He further submits that on the date of occurrence, he was admitted in a hospital and was not present at the place of occurrence.

¶17

Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of firing upon the deceased by means of fire arm and the opinion of the doctor is that death has caused due to fire arm injury in the upper portion of the body of the deceased, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶18

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶19

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)

¶20

Prabhakar Anand/-

¶21

U √ T √

Sukdeo Yadav @ Sukhdeo Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukdeo Yadav @ Sukhdeo 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

Sanjhli Devi Vs the State of Bihar

Pravin Goswami Vs The State of Bihar

Doman Sah @ Doman Shah Vs the State of Bihar

Dikesh Manjhi @ Vikesh Manjhi Vs The State of Bihar

Shyam Sundar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Daroga Chaudhary Vs The State of Bihar