Partly allowed

Ashish Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC19 Sept 2022CR. MISC./28371/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC Patna disposed of joint bail applications in a dacoity and murder case. Bail rejected for one petitioner due to recovery and role in fatal firing; another petitioner granted bail on conditions resembling co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected for petitioner Ashish Yadav. Bail granted to petitioner Satyajit Kumar on Rs. 20,000 bonds with two sureties, contingent on framing of charge.

Ashish Yadav Vs the State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24054 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2021 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur

¶3

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

¶4

Satyajit Kumar @ Sujit Gore @ Kumar, Son Of Jay Kumar Gond, R/O Village- Gausganj, P.S.- Ara Town, District- Bhojpur At Ara

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

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

¶10

with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 28371 of 2022

¶11

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-105 Year-2021 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur

¶12

====================================================== Ashish Yadav, Son Of Nawal Kishore Yadav @ Nawal Kishore Prasad, R/O Village- Gausganj, P.S.- Ara Nagar, District- Bhojpur, Bihar

¶13

... ... Petitioner/s

¶14

4 19-09-2022

¶15

Versus The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 24054 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Surj Bansh Roy, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 28371 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravindra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶16

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶17

Since both the applications arise out of Ara Mufassil

¶18

P.S. Case No. 105 of 2021, as such, they have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶19

Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and learned

¶20

APP for the State.

¶21

Let the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, be

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24054 of 2022(4) dt.19-09-2022 2/5

¶23

removed within a period of four weeks from the date of resumption of physical filing and physical removal of defect.

¶24

In the present case, the petitioners seek bail in connection with Ara Mufassil P.S. Case No.105 of 2021, registered for the alleged offence under Sections 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Later on, Section 302 IPC was added.

¶25

As per the prosecution case, a dacoity was committed in a branch of bank by five miscreants. Cash was looted and one of the miscreants received a gunshot injury in the firing made by another miscreant. Subsequently, he died. During investigation, the name of the petitioners transpired as accused persons who committed the crime.

¶26

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Th petitioners have not been named in the FIR and nothing incriminating has been recovered from their conscious possession. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner Satyajit Kumar that no Test Identification Parade has been conducted and for the same occurrence, three FIRs were registered. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner Ashish Yadav that though recovery of one country made pistol

¶27

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24054 of 2022(4) dt.19-09-2022 3/5

¶28

and 40 currency notes along with wrapper bearing stamp of a branch has been shown from the petitioner, but he denied the same as his signature was obtained on a number of papers and the same has been used for making preparation of seizure list and all the witnesses are police personnel. Moreover, no steps have been taken to get the recovered pistol and cartridge to mach with the arms and ammunition used in the occurrence. It has further been submitted that the other co-accused persons, namely Nitish Kumar Singh, Ajit Kumar Rai and Himanshu Singh have been granted bail by different Coordinate Bench of this Court vide orders dated 29.03.2022, 18.05.2022 and 17.05.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 60082 of 2021,71464 of 2021 and 70122 of 2021, respectively. The petitioners are in custody since 26.07.2021 and 22.06.2021, respectively. Charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners.

¶29

Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail submitting that the recovery of pistol and looted cash have been made from the petitioner Ashish Yadav, though no such recovery has been made from the petitioner Satyajit Kumar. During investigation, it also transpired that the accomplice of the petitioners died in the firing made by the petitioner Ashish Yadav.

¶30

Perused the records.

¶31

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24054 of 2022(4) dt.19-09-2022 4/5

¶32

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made hereinabove and considering the fact that recovery of pistol and looted cash has been shown from the petitioner Ashish Yadav with further allegation that this petitioner used the firearm and opened fire in a bank resulting in injury to co-accused, who subsequently died, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶33

Hence, the prayer of the petitioner Ashish Yadav is hereby rejected .

¶34

However, considering the fact that no recovery has been shown from the petitioner Satyajit Kumar and his case is similarly placed with other co-accused persons who have been granted bail and also considering his period of custody and submission of charge-sheet, he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-XI, Bhojpur at Ara, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 275 of 2021 arising out of Ara Mufassil P.S. Case No. 105 of 2021, subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the following conditions :

¶35

(i) The bail bond of the petitioner will be

¶36

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24054 of 2022(4) dt.19-09-2022 5/5

¶37

accepted only after framing of charge, if not already framed.

¶38

(ii) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.

¶39

(iii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below. (iv) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned.

¶40

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶41

V.K.Pandey/-

¶42

U T

Ashish Yadav v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish 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

Subhash Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Prince Rai @ Rakesh Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Naresh Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Gabbar Yadav @ Subodh Kumar @ Gabbara Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Satyajit Kumar @ Sujit Gore @ Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Vicky Kumar Vs the State of Bihar