Patna High Court - Orders
Jay Narayan Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 30 November, 2017
Author: Nilu Agrawal
Bench: Nilu Agrawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.49274 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -178 Year- 2017 Thana -JHAJHA District- JAMUI
======================================================
1. Jay Narayan Yadav, Son of Arjun Yadav, Resident of Village-Mahapur,
P.S. Jhajha, District-Jamui.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha
For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Anusuiya Jaiswal
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL
ORAL ORDER
3 30-11-2017Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Jhajha P.S. Case No. 178/17 for offences punishable under Sections 121, 121- A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1-b) a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act, Section ¾ of the Explosive Substance Act and Sections 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of the UAP Act.
The prosecution case, as lodged by the police personnel, is that on secret information that some naxalites are going to commit a serious crime, the police raided the poultry farm of the petitioner and apprehended him, while others managed to escape. Petitioner named seven of his accomplice, and on Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.49274 of 2017 (3) dt.30-11-2017 2/3 search, from the possession of the petitioner one country-made pistol, one live cartridge, one neojal, one electric detonator and two mobiles were recovered. Accordingly, a seizure-list was prepared.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent, is a victim of highhandedness of the police as he is a common businessman having a poultry farm and nothing has been recovered from his possession, but all these articles have been implanted by the police. He submits that even the seizure-list is not in compliance with Section 100 Cr.P.C., as there is no independent witness of the seizure-list. He further submits that charge-sheet has already been submitted, there is no allegation of tampering of the prosecution witnesses by the petitioner and he is languishing in judicial custody since 07.07.2017.
However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail stating therein that the petitioner was caught red-handed with the alleged items and that he does not bear a clean antecedent as one more case of similar nature is pending against him.
Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, let petitioner, above named, be enlarged on Patna High Court Cr.M isc. No.49274 of 2017 (3) dt.30-11-2017 3/3 bail on completion of six months in custody, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M., Jamui, in connection with Jhajha P.S. Case No. 178/2017, subject to the conditions that :
(i) Both the bailors would be a close relative of the petitioner having sufficient immovable property, who will file an affidavit stating their relationship with the petitioner.
(ii) Petitioner will appear before the learned court below during trial as and when required and failure to appear on two consecutive dates without assigning any reason will entail cancellation of his bail bonds.
(iii) If the petitioner indulges in an offence of similar nature in future, the prosecution will be at liberty to move the court below for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Nilu Agrawal, J) Rajesh/-
U T