Patna High Court – Orders
Akhilesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 16 April, 2025
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17999 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2015 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna
======================================================
1. Akhilesh Kumar S/O Late Dharamdeo Singh R/O Village- Tarwan, P.S-
Naubatpur, Distt.- Patna.
2. Yogendra Prasad @ Yogendra Prasad Yadav @ Yogendra Gope S/O Late
Ram Bhawan Yadav R/O Village- Tarwan, P.S- Naubatpur, Distt.- Patna.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nishikant, Advocate
Mr.Jitendra Acharya, Advocate
Mr.Suraj Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr.Narendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr.Anand Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2025
Heard Mr. Nishikant, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for
the State.
2. The accused-petitioners, named in the F.I.R.,
apprehending their arrest in connection with Naubatpur P.S.
Case No. 52 of 2015 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 342, 323, 302, 201 & 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. They have no criminal antecedent as stated in
paragraph ‘3’ of the application.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is to involve in
the murder of husband of the complainant/informant.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17999 of 2025(2) dt.16-04-2025
2/6
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that there are two important ‘changed
circumstances’, for which the present anticipatory bail petition
has been preferred on behalf of the petitioners on second
occasion, after rejection of their first anticipatory bail through
Cr. Misc. No. 28613/2019 dated 07.05.2019, considering the
available merits.
5. In this context, it is pointed out that firstly, other
similarly situated co-accused persons granted anticipatory bail
by one of the learned coordinate Bench of this Court through
Cr. Misc. No. 41197/2023 (Ram Padarath Singh & Ors Vs.
The State of Bihar) vide order dated 04.08.2023 and Cr.
Misc. No. 10854/2024 (Dilip Ram & Ors. Vs. The State of
Bihar) vide order dated 19.04.2024 and secondly, submission
of final form in Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 511/2014, which
has been accepted by learned Jurisdictional Magistrate.
6. Explaining the background of the present case in
brief, it is pointed out by learned counsel that for the present
occurrence, two cases were lodged, where first F.I.R. was
lodged as Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 511 of 2014 and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17999 of 2025(2) dt.16-04-2025
3/6
thereafter 57 days of the occurrence, wife of the one of the
the deceased namely, Sanjeet Yadav, lodged a complaint
narrating the involvement of petitioners and other co-accused
persons in murder of her husband namely Sanjeet Yadav,
which was referred to Naubatpur Police Station by exercising
power under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., and thereafter,
present F.I.R. i.e. Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 52 of 2015 was
lodged.
7. It is submitted that complainant examined in
Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 511/2014 also and her statement
duly recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., where, after
completion of investigation, police submitted final form which
was also accepted by learned jurisdictional Magistrate i.e.
A.C.J.M. – VI, Danapur on 16.11.2022.
8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioners that in the present occurrence, two persons died
out of drowning namely, Baleshwar Ram and Sanjeet Yadav.
Sanjeet Yadav was the husband of complainant/informant. It
is pointed out that for the said occurrence, Naubatpur P.S.
Case No. 511/2014 was registered, but the legal issues start
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17999 of 2025(2) dt.16-04-2025
4/6
to take its deviation after lodging of the complaint petition by
wife of the deceased Sanjeet Yadav after 57 days of the
occurrence making allegation thereto that petitioners have
murdered her husband. It was sent to police for investigation
after registering the F.I.R. which was lodged as Naubatpur
P.S. Case No. 52/2014. After investigation police submitted
final form, but learned Jurisdictional Magistrate by taking a
different view took cognizance against petitioners.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that statement
as recorded by the informant/complainant in Naubatpur P.S.
Case No. 511/2014, nowhere suggests the involvement of
petitioners in the alleged occurrence, rather it categorically
suggest that occurrence was an accident out of drowning.
Post-mortem report also suggest cause of death as drowning
without any external injuries. In furtherance of which, police
submitted final form on 04.11.2022, which was accepted by
the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate on 16.11.2022, and,
therefore, this subsequent development put a question mark
on the cognizance order dated 10.01.2019 against petitioners
as discussed aforesaid.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17999 of 2025(2) dt.16-04-2025
5/6
10. It is submitted by learned counsel that final form
in the present F.I.R. was also submitted by police against the
petitioners on 01.12.2017. It is pointed out by learned
counsel that main co-accused persons, as per alleged
complaint, namely, Dilip Ram and Raghu Pungawa have
already been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by learned
coordinate Bench of this Court through Cr. Misc. No. 10854 of
2024 vide order dated 19.04.2024.
11. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
12. In view of the aforesaid ‘changed circumstances’
and by taking note of the fact that other co-accused persons
facing more aggravating allegation qua petitioners have
already been granted anticipatory bail in the year 2024 by
learned coordinate Bench of this Court, accordingly, above-
named petitioners, in the event of their arrest/surrender
within a period of four weeks from today, are directed to be
enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bond of Rs.10,000/-
(ten thousand only) each with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-II,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17999 of 2025(2) dt.16-04-2025
6/6
Danapur/concerned court in connection with Naubatpur P.S.
Case No. 52 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short “B.N.S.S.”).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link