The Patna High Court dismissed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The Court found ample evidence of complicity in the alleged occurrence and rejected the claim of false implication.
Application for grant of anticipatory bail 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.8980 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-311 Year-2019 Thana- RAJAON District- Banka
======================================================
JAGLA YADAV @ JANGLA YADAV Son of Subhas Yadav @ Suvash Ydav Resident of Village- Khaira, P.S.- Rajoun, District- Banka.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Angad Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Anita Kumari Singh ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER
6 10-03-2021
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
Ms. Anita Kumari Singh, the learned A.P.P. for the State.
This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with Rajoun PS case no. 311 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 386/34 of Indian Penal Code and 27 of Arms Act.
The allegation is regarding 08 accused persons having arrived at the house of the informant, whereafter quarrel had taken place on account of dispute regarding pathway on the private land, whereupon the petitioner and one co-accused person namely Mukesh Yadav are alleged to have fired on Nityanand Yadav as also on Rajhansh Yadav.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8980 of 2020(6) dt.10-03-2021 2/2
implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that during investigation, it has been revealed that although two persons had fired gun shots, however only one injury has been sustained by the said Nityanand Yadav.
Per contra, the learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that there is direct allegation of firing upon the petitioner herein.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the materials available on record as also those available in the case diary, apart from the fact that the petitioner is accused in one another case, this Court finds that there are ample materials on record to show the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence, hence I do not find any merit in the present petition, hence the same stands dismissed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
rinkee/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of attempting to murder and illegal possession of arms.
Whether the materials on record indicate the petitioner's complicity in the alleged firing incident.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jagla Yadav
State of Bihar
Mohit Kumar Shah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
