CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS 354of 2024 on 30 December 2024

ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners have preferred this application forgrant of regular bail in connection with Korha P.S. Case No. 354of 2024 dated 30.12.2024 registered for the offences punishableunder Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 29.12.2024 at about6.00 P.M., the informant's brother, Akhilesh Yadav went to PawaiChowk on his motorcycle but he did not come back to home till8.00 P.M. The wife of Akhilesh Yadav called on his mobile thenAkhilesh Yadav told that he is at Pawai Chowk and after sometime, he will come back. It is further alleged that on 30.12.2024 atabout 5.00 A.M. in morning, the informant came to know that hisbrother was lying dead at Dhobiya Ghat situated at Barandi river.Later on, on information, police reached the place of occurrenceand saw that the informant's younger brother Akhilesh Yadav waslying dead at the place of occurrence and there was bullet injuryon his chest. The informant has further alleged that Rs. 8,00,000/-of his brother was due on Md. Tarik Shah and due to the saidreason, Md. Tarik Shah committed murder with co-operation ofsome other accused persons.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted thatthe petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated inthis case. The petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. The name ofthe petitioners has sprung up in the confessional statement of theco-accused, Md. Tarikh Sah and the confessional statement of theco-accused person before police which has no evidentiary value inthe eye of law. The informant is not an eye witness to the alleged occurrence. The co-accused person has already been granted regularbail by this court vide order dated 09.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.41990/2025. The petitioners have no concern with the allegedoccurrence. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent as stated inpara 3 of the bail petition. The petitioners are in custody since01.01.2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for theinformant have opposed the bail petition of the petitioners bysubmitting that the petitioners are involved with the other co-accusedpersons in the commission of murder of Akhilesh Yadav underconspiracy. Learned counsel has further submitted that the allegationagainst the petitioner, Gulsan Kumar is of catching hold of thedeceased with the other accused persons and the petitioner DilipYadav and the co-accused, Md. Tarik Sah fired on the deceased dueto which he fell down and died which is evident from theconfessional statement of the co-accused, Md. Tarik Sah in para 35 ofthe case diary. As per the post-mortem report of the deceased, thecause of death is haemorrhagic and neurogenic shock due to firearminjury.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances ofthe case as well as the period of custody, the petitioner namely,Gulshan Kumar is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties ofthe like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Gautam/-UT

Katihar in connection with Korha P.S. Case No. 354 of 2024 withthe condition :-

(i) The petitioner is directed to remain physically presentbefore the learned Court below on each and every date, failing whichon two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bond ofthe petitioner is liable to be cancelled.

7. The application stands allowed with regard to thepetitioner namely, Gulshan Kumar.

8. So far as, the petitioner namely, Dilip Yadav isconcerned, Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of thecase as well as the heinous nature of allegation against the petitioner,this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner namely, DilipYadav and the same is rejected in connection with Korha P.S. CaseNo. 354 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Chief JudicialMagistrate, Katihar.

10. Accordingly, the application with regard to thepetitioner namely, Dilip Yadav stands rejected.

11. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial ofthe petitioner and conclude the same at the earliest.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)