Patna High Court - Orders
Ganesh Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 26 July, 2017
Author: Kishore Kumar Mandal
Bench: Kishore Kumar Mandal, Madhuresh Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.746 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -29 Year- 2010 Thana -GHOGHARDIHA District- MADHUBANI
======================================================
1. Ganesh Yadav, S/o Ram Kripal Yadav, R/o Village- Nanaur Tole
Dumariyahi, P.S.- Rudrapur, District- Madhubani.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sri Mayanand Jha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL)
3 26-07-2017We have heard Mr. Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate, for the appellant in support of the prayer for grant of bail after suspending the sentence during the pendency of the appeal as well as Mr. Jha, APP for the State.
The sole appellant has been held guilty under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The informant was following his son (deceased). Near the bamboo clump, the appellant stopped the deceased whereafter other accused persons, who were hiding from before behind the bamboo clump, emerged and at the orders of one of the co- accused, his brother Dinesh fired at the deceased causing his death.
Contention of the appellant is that he was not hiding Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.746 of 2017 (3) dt.26-07-2017 2/2 behind the bamboo clump. He had the privilege of bail during the trial. The appellant has been acquitted under Section 120B IPC.
Counsel for the informant and the State, however, opposed the prayer. It has been submitted that the evidence of the informant is consistent on the participation of the appellant in the crime.
Considering the nature of incriminating materials available on record against the appellant, we are not inclined to direct release of the appellant on bail. Prayer is rejected. However, considering the fact that the appellant had the privilege of bail and that he was not the accused who inflicted injury on the deceased, We would grant him liberty to renew prayer for bail if the appeal itself is not taken up for final hearing within 10 months As we have rejected the prayer for bail, the Office will take steps for preparation of the paper book and listing of the case strictly as per seriatim considering the age of incarceration of the appellant.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) (Madhuresh Prasad, J) Pankaj/-
U T