✦ Patna High Court

PRAMOD YADAV v. The State of Bihar Bihar

SJ) No. 3966 of 2022ALOK KUMAR PANDEY3 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

In the aforesaid manner, the appeal stands dismissed

Provisions considered

Judgment

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar

2.

UMESH RISHIDEO S/O KARTIK RISHIDEO Resident of village- Raghunath Pur, P.S.- Bhargama, District- Araria. ... ... Respondent/s

====================================================== Appearance : Mr.Manisha Prakash For the Appellant/s For the Respondent/s Mr.Binay Krishna ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY : : ORAL ORDER 2 07-12-2022 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State. Learned counsel for the appellant by filing supplementary affidavit submits that he has removed the defect(s) as pointed out by the office. I.A. No. 01/2022 has been filed for condonation of delay of 240 days in preferring the instant appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, delay is condoned and the appeal be registered. The interim application is accordingly disposed of. The appellant has filed the instant appeal against the order dated 04.01.2022 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge cum Special (SC/ST) Judge, Araria whereby the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3966 of 2022(2) dt.07-12-2022 prayer for bail of the appellant in connection with Bhargama P.S. Case no.

180 of 2021 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 326, 307, 302, 379, 504 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(i) (r)/ 3(i)(s), 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (POA) Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act, was rejected. As per prosecution case, accusation against the appellant and others is that they came to the disputed land with deadly weapons along with 20-25 unknown persons and started cutting the paddy crops and when the informant’s uncle Chandeshwari Rishideo raised objection, he was dashed and forced to fled away. Thereafter, Chandeshwari Rishideo informed the matter to his family. In the meantime, co-accused Dayanand Yadav started abusing to Chandeshwari Rishideo and made indiscriminate firing upon him causing injury upon his ribs and other part of the body as a result of which Chandeshwari Rishideo fell down. It is further alleged that co-accused Dayanand Yadav also made firing upon the informant due to which he sustained injury on his both arms.

It is further alleged that appellant Pramod Yadav fired upon Bhim Rishideo causing injury on his back and when the aunt of the informant came to rescue them, co-accused Gajo Yadav assaulted her by means of lathi. The injured persons were brought to PHC, Bhargama but they were referred to Sadar Hospital, Araria and on the way, injured Chandeshwari Rishideo Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.3966 of 2022(2) dt.07-12-2022 succumbed to death. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is in custody since 12.11.2021 and bears criminal antecedent of one case. He further submits that there is land dispute between the parties. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the appellant submitting that there is direct allegation against the appellant and the same is supported by the injury report. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the appellant coupled with injury report and the material available on record, I am not inclined to grant bail to the appellant.

Operative part

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the appellant is hereby rejected. However, the appellant may renew prayer of bail after nine months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order to the court concerned, if there is no substantial progress in the proceeding of trial within the stipulated period. In the aforesaid manner, the appeal stands dismissed. (Alok Kumar Pandey, J) shahzad/- U T

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: In the aforesaid manner, the appeal stands dismissed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 324, 325, 326, 341, 379, 504; Arms Act, 1959 — s. 27.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Patna High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. SJ) No. 3966 of 2022). ← Search more judgments