Patna High Court
Dhananjay Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 18 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34186 of 2021
Arising out of
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 19914 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-2019 Thana- HUSSAINGANJ District- Siwan
======================================================
Dhananjay Yadav, Gender-Male, aged about 26 years, Son of Late
Bindeshwari Yadav, Resident of Village Chhapiya Khurd Tola Daroga Hata,
PS Hussainganj, District- Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Javed Aslam, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Md. Mustaque Alam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-08-2021
The matter has been heard via video conferencing.
2. Heard Mr. Javed Aslam, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Md. Mustaque Alam, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.
3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with
Hussainganj PS Case No. 218 of 2019 dated 24.07.2019, instituted
under Sections 363 of the Indian Penal Code to which later on
Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code was added.
4. This is the second attempt for bail by the petitioner as
earlier such prayer was rejected by judgment and order dated
21.08.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 19914 of 2020.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34186 of 2021 dt.18-08-2021
5. The allegation against the petitioner is of abducting
the 13 years old son of the informant, who has still not been
recovered.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
matter has been considered on merit as noted in the last order of
rejection. However, it was submitted that later, co-accused
Avinash Kumar Yadav has been granted bail by a co-ordinate
Bench by order dated 25.03.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 1165 of
2021. It was also contended that the chargesheet has been
submitted and the petitioner is in custody since 26.06.2020.
7. Learned APP submitted that no fresh ground or
mitigating circumstances have been canvassed before the Court
which may merit reconsideration of the prayer for bail. It was
submitted that the case of the petitioner stands on a very different
footing to that of co-accused Avinash Kumar Yadav, as the
petitioner had direct motive to commit the crime since the
daughter of the informant with whom he was in love was married
to another person and further, that he had called up from three
mobile phones to inform that he had kidnapped the son of the
informant for that reason. Further, it was submitted that the Court
has considered everything in detail in the last order of rejection.
Moreover, it was submitted that besides the case of co-accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34186 of 2021 dt.18-08-2021
Avinash Kumar Yadav standing on a different footing than that of
the petitioner, the order rejecting the bail of the petitioner dated
21.08.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 19914 of 2020 was not
brought to the notice of the co-ordinate Bench on 25.03.2021.
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the
case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, in view of
there being no fresh ground or mitigating circumstances to merit
reconsideration of the prayer, and also there being strong
indication of the involvement of the petitioner in the crime and till
date, the 13 years old minor son of the informant being traceless,
the Court is not inclined to allow the prayer for bail.
9. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
P. Kumar
AFR/NAFR
U
T
