CR. MISC./30260/2020 of NEETU KUMAR YADAV @ NEETU YADAV Vs The State of Bihar on 23 December 2020

4

23-12-2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNACRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30260 of 2020

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2020 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhojpur ======================================================

NEETU KUMAR YADAV @ NEETU YADAV Son of Umashankar SinghResident of Village- Bhatwa Dihari, P.O.- Shivpur, P.S.- Dhangai, District-Bhojpur.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAHORAL ORDER

The learned counsel for the parties were heard at lengthon 21.12.2020 and the present case has been listed ‘For Orders’today.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection withJagdishpur P.S. Case No. 20 of 2020 for the offence registeredunder Sections 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The present case has been registered on the basis ofthe fardbeyan of the Choukidar of the village, who has statedthat while he was on tour of his area he got information thatunder the bridge situated over Duloura river a dead body of anunknown person is lying, whereafter he had reached at the saidplace of occurrence and found that a dead body of an unknownperson was lying there and it appeared that at some other place the said person has been killed by knife and then the dead bodyhas been thrown from the bridge into the river.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submittedthat the petitioner is innocent, has been falsely implicated in thepresent case, is having a clean antecedent and he is languishingin custody since 17.03.2020. The learned counsel for thepetitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is not anFIR named accused person and except his confessionalstatement, there is no evidence on record to suggest thecomplicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime, and in anyview of the matter, the said confessional statement has got noevidentiary value in the eyes of law.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the State hasvehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of thecase, considering the submissions made by the learned counselfor the petitioner and taking into account the materials availablein the case dairy, more particularly the detailed supervision note,this Court finds that ample evidence has been collected so as toprima facie prove the complicity of the petitioner in the allegedcrime, who is stated to be a member of the gang which isengaged in intercepting trucks on the highway and committing S.Sb/- UT

loot and during the course thereof the petitioner along with otheraccused persons had abducted the driver of the truck inquestion, killed him and had then looted the truck loaded withrefine oil, however, on account of strict police vigil andchecking, the petitioner had abandoned the truck on the roadand fled away. Thus, I find that the complicity of the petitionerin the alleged crime is writ large on the records, hence I do notfind the present case to be a fit case for grant of bail, hence thepresent petition stands dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)