IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15184 of 2021

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2020 Thana- JANKINAGAR District- Purnia

======================================================

Akhilesh Yadav @ Akhilesh Kumar, Son of Bhupendra Yadav Resident of

Village- Rajwadih Ward No.18, P.S.- Jankinagar, Dist- Purnia.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr. Saroj Narayan Yadav, Advocate

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. M. BADAR

ORAL ORDER

4

22-11-2021

The applicant/accused in Crime No. 38 of 2020

registered with Janki Nagar Police Station for the offence

punishable under Sections 307 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal

Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act at the instance of the

first informant Nandani Devi by this application is seeking his

release on bail during the pendency of the trial. Later on,

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code has been added.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

applicant/accused. He argued that the co-accused with similar

accusation, namely, Umesh Yadav is already released on bail

by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2021 passed in Criminal

Misc. No. 32041 of 2020 and on the principle of parity, the

applicant is also entitled for bail.

Drawing my attention to the statement of Sudhanshu

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15184 of 2021(4) dt.22-11-2021

2/4

Kumar, son of the deceased Anmol Kumar Sah, it is argued that

this alleged eye witness has never named the applicant as a

person who fired at the deceased. The learned counsel for the

applicant submits that the FIR itself shows that the applicant

and the co-accused are neighbour of the deceased and

therefore, son of the deceased was very well knowing the

applicant. He submits that belated after two and half months,

statement of Sudhanshu Kumar came to be recorded under

Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he has improved his

version.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the

bail application by contending that somewhere in the case

diary, Sudhanshu has named the applicant as assailant.

I have considered the submissions so advanced and

perused the case diary. The statement of Sudhanshu was

recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of

investigation. He averred that on one motorcycle two riders

came and asked the name of his father, Anmol Kumar Sah and

then one of those riders fired bullet at his father causing death

of his father. This witness attracted the enmity to the applicant

and the co-accused. The said co-accused, Umesh Yadav has

already released on bail by this Court vide order dated

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15184 of 2021(4) dt.22-11-2021

3/4

27.01.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 32041 of 2020. After

two and half months, witness Sudhanshu has improved his

version in his statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.

Except this statement, nothing has come against the applicant

in the case diary.

The applicant is behind the bars since 13.03.2020.

Considering the fact that co-accused with similar

accusation, namely, Umesh Yadav is already released on bail

by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2021 passed in Criminal

Misc. No. 32041 of 2020 as well as the fact that the

Investigation of the crime in question is over and therefore, the

order :-

i. The application is allowed.

ii. The applicant/accused in Crime No. 38 of 2020

registered with Janki Nagar Police Station for the offence

punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 120(B) of the Indian

Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act be released

on bail on executing P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen

Thousand) on furnishing surety of the like amount to the

satisfaction of the trial court with the foll