IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69789 of 2021

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2021 Thana- AANDAR District- Siwan

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

PRADEEP YADAV @ PRADEEP KUMAR S/o Late Chandrika Yadav R/o

village- Sultanpur, Dahabadi, P.S.- Andar, District- Siwan

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

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

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr.Prabhakar Singh, Advocate

For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Nirmala Kumari, APP

For the Informant

:

Mr.Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA

ORAL ORDER

3

26-07-2022

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,

149, 341, 323, 324, 448, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant

alleges that the named accused persons, including the petitioner,

came to the house of the informant variously armed and

thereafter it is alleged that Dimple Yadav and petitioner

assaulted the brother of the informant by lathi on his head who

became unconscious and fell, thereafter it is alleged that the

accused persons said that he is still alive on which Dimple and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69789 of 2021(3) dt.26-07-2022

2/4

Pradeep killed his brother by twisting his neck. The other family

members including the informant and his son Anuj Kumar were

also assaulted and sustained injury.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from

bare perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. it would

manifest that the petitioner and the informant are patidars and

they are having land dispute, it is next submitted that there is

specific allegation in the F.I.R. that petitioner and Dimple Yadav

initially assaulted the brother of the informant on his head

causing injury on account of which he fell and thereafter they

killed him by twisting his neck. Learned counsel submits that

from tenor of the allegations as alleged in the F.I.R. it appears

that informant is an eyewitness to the occurrence but when the

postmortem report of the deceased is perused, it would manifest

that no injury was found on the head of the deceased, this amply

demonstrates that informant was not an eyewitness to the

occurrence. It is further submitted that even the cause of death,

as recorded by the doctor, also does not support the prosecution

case inasmuch as in the postmortem report it is recorded that

ligature mark was found on the neck of the deceased, when the

informant in the F.I.R. specifically alleged that the deceased was

killed by the petitioner and Dimple Yadav by twisting his neck,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69789 of 2021(3) dt.26-07-2022

3/4

as such the informant does not allege that the deceased was

killed by the petitioner and Dimple Yadav by strangulation.

Learned counsel submits that in case of hanging/strangulation

ligature mark do form on the neck depending on the pressure

exerted but in the present case there is specifically no allegation

of strangulation by the petitioner and Dimple Yadav. Learned

counsel next submits that it appears that occurrence took place

in some different manner and the victim took this as an

opportunity to falsely implicate the petitioner in order to coerce

him for settling the land dispute when informant and petitioner

are agnates and are cousin brothers.

Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel

for the informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

petitioner but are not able to meet the submissions of the learned

counsel for the petitioner that no injury was found on the head

of the deceased as