The Patna High Court rejected the bail application of Ajay Yadav in a murder case. The petitioner argued the victim had antecedents and was not an eye-witness, but the Court observed the post-mortem report supported the assault manner and denied bail.
The prayer for bail was 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.10755 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2020 Thana- CHANDRADIP District- Jamui
======================================================
Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Prasad Son of Krishnandan Yadav @ Krishn Nandan Yadav Resident of Village- Sanpo, P.S.- Chandradeep, District- Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bharat Lal For the Informant : Mr Arun Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mukeshwar Dayal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER
3 20-05-2022
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P for the State through video conferencing.
The petitioner seeks bail in Chandradeep P.S. Case
No. 177 of 2020 corresponding to Sessions Trial No. 374 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120(B), 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act.
As per the prosecution case, on 29.12.2020 at about 9.00 AM while the husband of informant was returning his home, this petitioner along with other co-accused persons opened fire from their respective pistols due to which three bullets entered into his body causing his death.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10755 of 2022(4) dt.20-05-2022 2/2
informant is not eye-witness of the occurrence rather after receiving the information she rushed at her village from Patna and thereafter, she has lodged this case. Informant’s husband (deceased) was carrying six criminal antecedents and got enmity with several persons he might have been killed by his enemy. Petitioner is in custody since 08.10.2021.
Learned APP however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that petitioner is named in the FIR and postmortem report supports the manner of assault.
Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
vinita/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in a case involving multiple offences including murder and conspiracy.
Whether the petitioner's lack of being an eye-witness and antecedents of the victim warrant bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Prasad
The State of Bihar
Prabhat Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
