Patna High Court - Orders
Kundan Yadav @ Kundan Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 29 November, 2022
Author: Satyavrat Verma
Bench: Satyavrat Verma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35223 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2021 Thana- BARHARA KOTHI District- Purnia
======================================================
KUNDAN YADAV @ KUNDAN KUMAR YADAV S/o Kumud Kumar
Yadav Resident of Village- Mouzampatti, P.S.- Barharakothi, Districct-
Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajnish Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 29-11-2022Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 342, 323, 307, 302 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that when she along with her husband and infant child was coming back after getting her child administered polio drops and reached near the place of Dilip, when the accused persons, including the petitioner, along with 5-6 unknown intercepted them and assaulted her husband, further Akhilesh, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35223 of 2022(2) dt.29-11-2022 2/3 Bhushan and Nityanand fired causing three fire arm injuries on him and he died at the spot, thereafter the accused persons fled away.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, it is next submitted that specific allegation of firing is against Akhilesh, Bhushan and Nityanand, it is further submitted that no specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioner except that he had also accompanied the accused persons. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that though in the FIR it is alleged that the deceased received three gun-shot injuries but from perusal of the post-mortem report it would manifest that there was only one gun-shot injury which further creates doubt with regard to the veracity of the allegations as alleged in FIR that is whether the informant was an eye-witness to the occurrence or not, it is also submitted that specific pleading has been made at Para-13 that the informant alleges that the occurrence took place at 2:15 PM and the police got information about the occurrence at 6.15 PM, but surprisingly S.I. Mahadeo Kamat received the body at Mouzampatti on 06.01.2021 at 1:00 PM which amply demonstrates that either the occurrence as alleged had not taken place in the manner it has been alleged or Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35223 of 2022(2) dt.29-11-2022 3/3 for some ulterior reasons the informant is trying to implicate the accused persons, including the petitioner, falsely as it is not possible that when an occurrence had taken place at 2.15 PM, then how come the body was received by the police on the same day at 1:00 PM.
Call for a legible carbon/photostat copy of the case diary in connection with Barhara (Raghubanshnagar) P..S. Case No. 10 of 2021 from the court of learned Additional District Judge-III, Purnea.
Put up this case on 19.01.2023.
In the meantime, there shall be no coercive action against the petitioner until the matter is finally adjudicated and disposed of by this Court.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Shivam/-
U T