IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65839 of 2021

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-357 Year-2019 Thana- MURLIGANJ District- Madhepura

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

SONU YADAV Son of Arvind Yadav Resident of Village Narayanpur P.S.

Jankinagar, District - Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr. Dinesh Prasad Verma, Advocate

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, A.P.P.

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA

ORAL ORDER

2

01-04-2022

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P.

for the State through virtual Court proceedings.

Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of

four weeks after complete start of the physical Court.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 395, 397 of the Indian Penal

Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is in custody since 19.04.2021, charge-sheet has been

submitted and has antecedent of one case.

The informant alleges that three unknown criminal

intercepted him and looted away Rs.3,00,000/- and on pretest one

accused fired hitting the informant at his thigh and thereafter fled

away.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The FIR

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65839 of 2021(2) dt.01-04-2022

2/2

was against unknown and name of this petitioner transpired in the

confessional statement of co-accused Mukesh Kumar Sharma who

stated that this petitioner along with Mukesh Kumar Sharma and

others participated in the occurrence and Rupesh Yadav fired at the

informant when he protested. Learned counsel for the petitioner

further submits that though confessional statement has no evidentiary

value in the eyes of law but even assuming what has been stated by

Mukesh Kumar Sharma is true then also allegation of firing is not

against the petitioner.

Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the

prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since

19.04.2021, charge-sheet has been submitted and name of the

petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of the co-accused

which has no evidentiary value, the petitioner, above named, is

directed be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/-

(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each

to the satisfaction of learned Court below where the case is pending

in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 357 of 2019, one of the

bailors shall be the father (Arvind Yadav) of the petitioner.

Kundan/-

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

U

T