Patna High Court
Gigal Yadav @ Vidyanath Yadav vs The State Of Bihar on 18 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.413 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-153 Year-2020 Thana- BARH District- Patna
======================================================
1. Gigal Yadav @ Vidyanath Yadav Son of Paras Yadav Resident of Village -
Dalishaman Chak, P.S.- Barh, District - Patna, Bihar.
2. Bheem Yadav Son of Ramashreya Yadav Resident of Village - Dalishaman
Chak, P.S.- Barh, District - Patna, Bihar.
3. Tirloki Yadav @ Arvind Kumar Son of Kedar Yadav Resident of Village -
Dalishaman Chak, P.S.- Barh, District - Patna, Bihar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma Sr. Adv. with
Mr.Nishant Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan Spl PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 18-03-2021
Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned Spl.
PP for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants is expected to
honour his undertaking given in the instant case for depositing the
requisite court fee and to remove the defects as pointed out by
office when called upon to do so.
3. The appellants have preferred the present appeal
under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 against the refusal of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.413 of 2021 dt.18-03-2021
prayer for regular bail vide order dated 09.10.2020, passed by
learned Additional District Judge-X-cum-Special Judge,(SC/ST
Act) Patna in BarhPS Case No.153 of 2020, Special case
No.208/2020 registered under 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code,
Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1) ( r)(s), and 3(2)(v)(a)
of the SC/ST Act.
4.The prosecution case alleges that the informant had
gone to attend the call of nature and when he was returning he
saw his son along with some friends. Thereafter, co-villagers, six
in numbers, including the appellants have surrounded him and
allegation against appellant Nos 1 and 2 is that they have fired
upon the victim, whereas the appellant No.3 is stated to be one
who was exhorting the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 to fire upon the
victim.
5. The case diary had earlier been called for; the same
has been received.
6. The learned senior counsel has submitted that from
perusals of the material collected during the course of
investigation, the prosecution case of indiscriminate firing by three
persons, including the appellant Nos 1 and 2 stands falsified as
there is only one gun shot injury found in the postmortem report as
well as the inquest report, which have stated regarding one wound
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.413 of 2021 dt.18-03-2021
of entry and exit on the victim. That coupled with the statements of
witness who claims to be an eye witness recorded in paragraph No.
35 of the case diary makes it abundantly clear that appellant nos. 1
and 2 have not fired upon the victim. In fact, it is co-accused Gauri
who has fired upon him whereas regarding appellant Nos 1 and 2,
there is statement that they had caught hold of the victim.
Regarding the appellant no.3, there is no specific overt act alleged
by the prosecution. The appellant nos. 1 and 3 are stated to be in
custody since 16.06.2020, whereas appellant no.2 is stated to be in
custody since 19.06.2020. The appellant nos. 1 and 2 have no
criminal antecedents whereas appellant No.3 is also accused in
one another case, details of which have been mentioned in the
supplementary affidavit i.e. Barh PS Case No. 114 of 2020.
6. The learned Spl. PP has opposed the prayer for bail by
submitting that the case of the prosecution regarding
indiscriminate firing has been supported by other witnesses during
the course of investigation. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have
allegedly fired upon the victim also.
7. Considering the rival submissions, this appeal is
allowed. The impugned order dated 09.10.2020 passed by learned
Additional District Judge-X-cum-Special Judge,(SC/ST Act)
Patna, in Barh PS Case No.153 of 2020, Special case
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.413 of 2021 dt.18-03-2021
No.208/2020, is set aside. Let the appellants, above named, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-( Rupees
Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned Additional District Judge-X-cum-
Special Judge,(SC/ST Act) Patna, in Barh PS Case No.153 of
2020, Special case No.208/2020, subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) That one of the bailors will be a close relative of the
appellants who will give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how
he is related with the appellants. The bailor will also undertake to
inform the Court if there is any change in the address of the
appellants.
(ii) That the appellants will be well represented on each
date and if they fail to do so on two consecutive dates, their bail
bond will be liable to be cancelled.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
shyambihari/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 22/3/2021
Transmission Date
