Allowed

Raj Kumar Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Jan 2022CR. MISC./28000/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a case involving looting under IPC Section 395. The court directed the petitioner to remove defects and furnish bail bonds within specified timeframes due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond with direction to furnish sureties within eight weeks after restoration of normalcy.

Raj Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28000 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2021 Thana- JOKIHAT District- Araria

¶3

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

¶4

Raj Kumar Yadav S/O Fakirchand Yadav R/O Village-Kharaiya Basti, Police Station-Araria, District-Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Rana, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Satyendra Prasad, APP

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 10-01-2022

¶14

Due to the third wave of COVID-19 Pandemic, the

¶15

matter is being taken up by way of Virtual Court proceeding.

¶16

The matter has been listed under the heading ‘For Orders’ under the orders of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State through virtual mode.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, within a period of four weeks after restoration of normalcy.

¶19

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Jokihat (Mahalgaon) P.S. case No.27 of 2021 registered under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

Allegation is that some unknown miscreants looted the informant’s truck.

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28000 of 2021(2) dt.10-01-2022 2/3

¶22

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. There is no allegation of tampering of witnesses alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. His name has transpired in this case on disclosure made by co-accused. Except for this, there is no other substantive evidence to suggest the implication of the petitioner in this case. There is no recovery of any incriminating article from the possession of the petitioner.

¶23

On behalf of the State, it is submitted that the petitioner is not named in the complaint case/F.I.R.

¶24

It is necessary to indicate here that this Court while considering the prayer made in the present anticipatory bail application has taken note of the exponential rise in number of covid cases due to outbreak of third wave of Covid-19 pandemic. Further this Court can also not lose sight of the fact that the condition of jails is not conducive and suitable to the present situation which has arisen due to the sudden rise in covid cases.

¶25

Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender

¶26

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28000 of 2021(2) dt.10-01-2022 3/3

¶27

before the learned court below within a period of twelve weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on his personal bond to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in connection with Jokihat (Mahalgaon) P.S. case No.27 of 2021, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶28

Once the normalcy is restored, the petitioner shall furnish bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each within a period of eight weeks to the satisfaction of the Court concerned in connection with the aforesaid case.

¶29

(Sudhir Singh, J)

¶30

Narendra/-

¶31

U T

Raj Kumar Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar 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

Suresh Rout Vs the State of Bihar

Azad Yadav @ Azad Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Bhagwan Yadav @ Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bhanu Pratap Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Tun Tun Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Roshan Kumar @ Raushan Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Krishnakant Yadav Vs the State of Bihar