The man denied bail and appeal challenging the same after considering the 18 criminal antecedents by the court: High Court Of Patna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEALNo 35621 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 53 Year 2021 Thana RAMPUR District Gaya SHYAM KUMAR @ SHAMU YADAV S o LATE SATYENDRA PRASAD YADAV @ SACHU YADAV R o VILLAGE MUSTAFABAD WARD No 30 P.S RAMPUR DISTRICT GAYA THE STATE OF BIHAR ... Appellant s ... Respondent s For the Appellant s Mr Ramakant Sharma Sr Advocate with Mr Lakshmi Kant Sharma Advocate Mr Sadanand Paswan Special PP Mr Sanjay Kumar Sinha Advocate For the S t a t e For the I n f o r m a n t CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD Date : 21 10 2021 Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant learned Special Public Prosecutor of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled TribesAmendment Act 2015against the refusal of his prayer for regular bail vide order dated 02.08.2021 passed in Bail PetitionNo 2621 by Special Judge SC ST Act Gaya in a case registered under Sections 341 323 307 386 of Patna High Court CR. APPNo.35621 dt.21 10 2021 Indian Penal Code Section 27 of Arms Act and Sections 3(s) 3 of SC ST Act arising out of Rampur Police StationCase No 521 dated 17.02.2021 3 The prosecution case is that for non fulfillment of some extortion amount it is alleged that the instant appellant has obstructed the construction work at the informant’s site and fired upon him causing firearm injury on his neck 4 Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that due to 18 criminal antecedents the appellant has been dragged in this case. It is a case of false implication 5 Learned counsel for the informant and learned Special PP have submitted that the firearm injury stands corroborated in the course of investigation. Fired cartridge was also found at the place of occurrence 6 In my opinion in view of nature of accusation in the First Information Report keeping the criminal antecedents of the petitioner at the background period of custody of the petitioner since 23.02.2021 a case for grant of regular bail is not made out. The impugned order dated 02.08.2021 passed in BP No 2621 does not require interference by this Court which is accordingly affirmed 7 This appeal is dismissed. The impugned order Patna High Court CR. APPNo.35621 dt.21 10 2021 dated 02.08.2021 passed by Special Judge SC ST Act Gaya in B P No 2621 arising out of Rampur PS Case No 521 dated 17.02.2021 is affirmed 8 Prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected for Madhuresh Prasad J NAFR NA

Summary: The appellant has filed an appeal in the court for challenging and amending the previous order in which the bail was denied by the court. The appellant has been accused of hurting grievously and has many other criminal antecedents. The Court after considering the facts contended that the bail order needs no interference by the court and same stands to be affirmed. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad in the Shyam Kumar v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Appeal (SJ) No 3569 of 2021].  The facts of the case were that the appellant has filed an appeal under Section 14A(2) of Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes Act 2015. This was filed against the refusal of the bail orders by the court registered under sections 341, 323, 307, and 386 of Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of Arms Act, and Sections 3 (i) (r) (s), 3 (2-v) of SC/ST Act. The case arises out of non-fulfillment of the extortion amount. it was alleged that the instant appellant has obstructed the construction work at the informant’s site and fired upon him causing firearm injury on his neck. The Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the appellant had other 18 criminal antecedents, he was being dragged in the case under false implication. The other side submitted that the forearms were found in the place of occurrence and that the injury has been corroborated in course of the investigation. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna took into consideration the facts and nature of the FIR filed and keeping the criminal antecedents in mind and background pf the petitioner denied the bail and said that the order needs no interference by this court and is accordingly affirmed. The appeal was hence dismissed.