Disposed

Darogi Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC3 Dec 2024CR. MISC./46801/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a murder case with charges under IPC Sections 302/34/121A, Arms Act Section 27 and Sections 16-22 of the UAP Act. Citing Gurwinder Singh and the embargo under Section 43-D(5), the court found accusations prima facie true given criminal antecedents and rejected bail, directing expedited trial.

What the court decided

AI extract

Darogi Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46801 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-168 Year-2013 Thana- SONO District- Jamui

¶3

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

¶4

Darogi Yadav Son of Bodhan Yadav Village- Dudhania, Po And Ps- Sano, Dist- Jamui

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

5 03-12-2024

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and perused the case diary.

¶14

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sono (Charka Pathar) P.S. Case No. 168 of 2013 instituted for the offences under Sections 302, 34, 121A of the Indian Penal Code, 27 of the Arms Act, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the U.A.P. Act.

¶15

Prosecution case, in short, is that, on the alleged date and time of occurrence, all the FIR named accused persons and 30-40 other unknown miscreants surrounded the informant’s son and assaulted him. It is further alleged that miscreants shot the informant’s son dead.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46801 of 2024(5) dt.03-12-2024 2/5

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. No specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody since 04.02.2021 and has twenty-one criminal antecedents.

¶19

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned APP further submitted that there is ample material against the petitioner in the case diary to establish his active participation in the offence beyond the reasonable doubt, coupled with the fact that petitioner has fairly a large number of criminal antecedents. Learned counsel further referring to Section 43-D (5) and 43D(6) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 submitted that bail must be rejected if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against person alleged of offences punishable under Chapter IV and VI of the UAP Act is prima facie true. Learned APP for the State further submitted that since police after investigation submitted charge-sheet under Sections 302/34, 121A of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 of the UAP Act, prima facie, the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offences

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46801 of 2024(5) dt.03-12-2024 3/5

¶21

cannot be denied. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that in the light of the present facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail may be rejected.

¶22

For better appreciation of the case, Section 43-D of UAP Act, is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶23

“ 43-D. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code.-

¶24

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or any other law, every offence punishable under this Act shall be deemed to be a cognizable offence within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the Code, and “cognizable case” as defined in that clause shall be construed accordingly.

¶25

(2) ……… (4)

¶26

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for such release: Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.

¶27

(6) The restrictions on granting of bail specified in sub-section (5) is in addition to the restrictions under the Code or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.

¶28

(7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (5) and (6), no bail shall be granted to a person accused of an offence punishable under this Act, if he is not

¶29

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.46801 of 2024(5) dt.03-12-2024 4/5

¶30

an Indian citizen and has entered the country unauthorisedly or illegally except in very exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing.”

¶31

Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act modifies the application of the general bail provisions in respect of offences punishable under Chapter IV and VI of the UAP Act. From bare perusal of Section 43-D(5) it is evident that the said Section puts a complete embargo on the powers of the Court to release an accused on bail. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Gurwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and Anr.[(2024) 5 SCC 403] has observed that the often quoted phrase “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” is not applicable in the cases under UAP Act. It is further observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person as regards commission of offence(s) under Chapter IV and/or Chapter VI of the UAP Act, is prima facie true, such person shall not be released on bail. After perusing the material available in the case dairy as well as the report submitted by the police under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., it appears that the accusation against the petitioner is found, prima facie, true.

¶32