Shyam Sundar Yadav v. The State of Jharkhand

one Gultan Yadav, are alleged to have fired upon the Informant while he was fleeing away and due to which the Informant sustained injury in his neck and became unconscious. 1 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:31153 )

Heard Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

It is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Court below is illegal and not sustainable in law. It is submitted that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is submitted that the allegation of firing upon the Informant by the appellant is false and concocted. It is submitted that the police had examined only interested witnesses. It is submitted appellant is in custody since 29.03.2025, hence, the appellant may be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that the appellant and the co-accused Gultan Yadav had fired at the Informant due to which the Informant sustained injury. It is submitted that the Injury report also shows one bullet injury upon the Informant on his neck. It is submitted that apart from the subsequent statement of the Informant at Paragraph No.3 of the Case Diary, the statement of the witnesses, namely Lalan Kumar Paswan, Vikash Kumar, Deepak Kumar Paswan and Upendra Paswan, at Paragraph No.s 4, 5, 10 and 11 respectively of the Case Diary have supported the allegation for firing against this appellant also. It is submitted that the appellant has got one criminal antecedent and hence, the prayer for bail of the appellant may be rejected. 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:31153 )

Perused the F.I.R. and the Case Diary and considered the submission of both sides.

It reveals from the F.I.R. that the appellant and one Gultan Yadav had fired upon the Informant which had caused injury upon the Informant in his neck. The Injury report also reveals that there was one circular entry wound and one circular exit wound, measuring 1 cm X 1 cm upon the neck of the Informant, which was found to be grievous in nature.

It appears from confessional statement of the appellant recorded at Paragraph 16 of the Case Diary that it was the co-accused Gultan Yadav, who had fired at the Informant.

Considering circumstances, the appellant, namely Shyam Sundar Yadav is directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each connection with Kenduadih (Gondhudih O.P.) P.S. Case No. 49 of 2025, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Dhanbad /or his Successor Court, subject to the condition that the appellant shall not indulge in such type of activity in future, failing which the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of the bail of the appellant and also subject to the conditions that the appellant will not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and he will not threaten directly or 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:31153 ) indirectly the prosecution witnesses conclusion of the trial and he shall remain present on each and every date before the learned Court below till the conclusion of the trial and he shall not leave the district of Dhanbad without prior permission of the learned Trial Court.

Accordingly,

21.05.2025, passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No.1272 of 2025, by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Dhanbad is set aside.

Thus, this Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 477 of 2025 is allowed.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad. s.m. (Sanjay Prasad, J.) 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:31153 ) 5