Allowed

Shiv Shankar Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC21 Mar 2024CR. MISC./6475/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail applications in a murder case arising from Yogapatti PS Case No.356 of 2023, where the petitioners were named in the FIR on suspicion and implicated via a co-accused's confession. The court noted custody of about seven months, absence of eye witnesses, and submission of the charge-sheet, and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Both petitioners enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Bettiah.

Shiv Shankar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3617 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-356 Year-2023 Thana- JOGAPATTI District- West Champaran

¶3

====================================================== DHANDHAR YADAV SON OF LATE BIGA YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - CHAUMUKHA, POLICE STATION - YOGAPATTI, DISTRICT - WEST CHAMPARAN

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶8

====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 6475 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-356 Year-2023 Thana- JOGAPATTI District- West Champaran ====================================================== Shiv Shankar Yadav SON OF BAIDHNATH YADAV RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- CHAUMUKHA, PS- YOGAPATTI, DISTT- WEST CHAMPARAN ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3617 of 2024) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bashishth Narayan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Harendra Prasad, APP For the Informant : Mr. Ram Kishun Prasad, Advocate (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 6475 of 2024) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bashishth Narayan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Ram Kishun Prasad, Advocate ======================================================

¶9

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

3 21-03-2024

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

The petitioners have preferred this application for

¶15

grant of regular bail in connection with Yogapatti P.S. Case no.356 of 2023 registered under sections 302 and 34 of the

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3617 of 2024(3) dt.21-03-2024 2/3

¶17

Indian Penal Code.

¶18

As per the prosecution case, the informant states that his son went out to play but did not return. The last he was seen was going on the motorcycle of one Ram Chhatri Yadav. The next morning his dead body was recovered. The informant states that he suspects the eight named accused persons including the two petitioners herein to be involved in the occurrence.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the though the petitioners are named in the FIR, however except for the informant having raised an unsubstantiated suspicion against the petitioners, neither there is any material in the FIR nor any material has transpired in course of investigation to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime except for the confessional statement of a co-accused made before police and that too not leading to any recovery. The petitioners are in custody since 6.8.2023 and investigation in the case has concluded.

¶20

The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the informant submits that not only the petitioners are named in the FIR but the material that has transpired in course of investigation, including in paragraph no. 39 of the

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3617 of 2024(3) dt.21-03-2024 3/3

¶22

case diary, wherein one of the co-accused has confessed and has described as to how the accused persons including the two petitioners herein entered into a conspiracy to give effect to the occurrence. It is further submitted that the postmortem report supports the statement made by the co-accused in his confession and the petitioners also have criminal antecedents.

¶23

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the material that has transpired in course of investigation, there being no eye witness to the occurrence, the petitioners being in custody for 7 months since 6.8.2023 and charge-sheet having been submitted in the case, both the petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Yogapatti P.S Case no.356 of 2023 on each of them furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, District- West Champaran.

¶24

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶25

Shiv/-

Shiv Shankar Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Shankar 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

Rajendra Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Sah Vs the State of Bihar

Sakaldev Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Sanullah Ansari @ Sainullah Vs The State of Bihar

Birju Ravidas @ Birju Ram Vs the State of Bihar

Dhandhar Yadav Vs the State of Bihar