Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.8101 of 2012 ====================================================== Santosh Yadav, son of Bhupendra Yadav, resident of village-Tamot Parsa, P.S.-Murliganj, District-Madhepura. .... .... Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 22-02-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with a case instituted under [STATUTE] and Section 25(1-B)A, 26 of the Arms Act. The informant claims that on 16.9.2010 at about 5 p.m. he came to know that his younger brother Mukesh Yadav was assaulted by the petitioner and others and was admitted in Kumarkhand Hospital. Upon this information, he together with his co-villagers came to Kumarkhand where the victim Mukesh Yadav was undergoing treatment. The victim was conscious and he disclosed that the petitioner, co-accused Mukesh Yadav, Jai Kumar Yadav, Pramod Yadav and Dhirendra Yadav dragged him out from the bus and mercilessely assaulted him. Thereafter, they took him to Kumarkhand Hospital and after planting a firearm and live cartridge in his possession they fled away. In course of treatment, the victim died. The fardbeyan of the informant Dilip Yadav was recorded on Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8101 of 2012 (2) dt.22-02-2012 2 / 3 2 17.9.2010 at 2.45 a.m. in Kumarkhand Primary Health Center. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the informant is not a witness to the alleged occurrence. The name of the accused persons has been given admittedly due to the on-going dispute between the parties existing from before. Had the allegation been true, some one must have informed the police when the victim was dragged out of the bus from which he was travelling. Admittedly, even prior to the arrival of the informant, the victim was admitted in Kumarkhand Primary Health Centre. If, he was conscious, his statement must have been made before the doctor, who treated him or the doctor ought to have informed the police. The F.I.R. was lodged only after the death of the Mukesh Yadav. It has also been contended that station diary entry nos. 255, 256 & 257 of Murliganj Police Station on 16.9.2010 would reveal that the Officer-in-Charge of Kumarkhand Police Station had chased the deceased Mukesh Kumar from Kumarkhand upto Kosi Dhala where Mukesh Kumar was arrested being in possession of a firearm and a cartridge. In the process of chase and arrest, he sustained injuries and was brought to hospital by the police. On 16.9.2010 itself, the doctor of Kumarkhand Hospital referred him to Madhepura at 6.30 p.m. as would be apparent from the bed head ticket of the hospital. None of the family member was present at the time of post mortem examination as would appear from the post mortem report. The petitioner has brought on record the relevant extract of station diary entry procured under Right to Information Act and the copy of the post mortem report in support of his argument. Lastly, it is also contended that similarly circumstanced co- accused Jai Kumar Yadav has been granted bail by order dated 20.10.2011 Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8101 of 2012 (2) dt.22-02-2012 3 / 3 3 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 14445 of 2011 and Sunil Yadav has been granted bail by order dated 11.2.2011 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 994 of 2011 by this Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in connection with Murliganj P.S. Case No. 168 of 2010 on the following conditions: (i) That both the bailors will be close relative of the petitioner who will give separate affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioner. (ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the court or to any other authority. (iii) That he shall remain present before the court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If he wants to remain absent, then he will take prior permission of the court and in case of compelling and unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent, he will immediately inform the court and request that he may be permitted to be present through the counsel. (iv) That liberty is given to the State to make an appropriate application for modifying/recalling the order granting bail, if for any reason, the petitioner violates any of the conditions imposed by this Court. Sanjeet/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.