The High Court rejected a bail application filed by the petitioner in a case involving sections 302 IPC and Arms Act. Despite no criminal antecedents and arguments regarding a co-accused, the court found the petitioner not fit for bail given the direct FIR allegations.
Application for bail 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.44811 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-203 Year-2019 Thana- SALAKHUA District- Saharsa
======================================================
ADHIN YADAV @ ABIN YADAV @ SUNIL YADAV S/o Jaychandra Yadav Resident of Village- Mundichak, P.S.- Salkhua, District- Saharsa.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Rashmi Jha, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER
6 01-12-2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail in a case registered under section 302 and other sections of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 15.12.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. no.28268 of 2020. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner stands on more or less similar ground to that of co-accused Bhemeshwar Prasad whose alias name is Ramesh Prasad and there is specific allegation of overt act against him. The same Bhemeshwar Prasad has been enlarged on anticipatory bail vide order dated 19.6.2020. Hence, the petitioner who has no criminal antecedent and has remained in custody since 4.1.2020 be enlarged on bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44811 of 2021(6) dt.01-12-2021 2/2
It is further submitted that a supplementary affidavit has been filed in the case bringing on record the depositions of the four prosecution witnesses to show that they have not supported the prosecution case.
The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts of the case, the direct allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. together with the progress in the trial in the learned trial court, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Saurabh/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on bail in a case involving sections 302 IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act.
Whether the petitioner is fit to be enlarged on bail considering no criminal antecedent and similar ground of bail granted to a co-accused.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Arvin Yadav @ Abin Yadav @ Sunil Yadav
The State of Bihar
Partha Sarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
