IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. APP (SJ) No.1009 of 2010
MOGAL YADAV & ANR
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
with
CR. APP (SJ) No.1018 of 2010
RAM JANAM YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR
with
CR. APP (SJ) No.1043 of 2010
RAJGIR YADAV
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
with
CR. APP (SJ) No.1092 of 2010
KHELO YADAV
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
with
CR. APP (SJ) No.1107 of 2010
MAHENDRA YADAV
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
5. 18.01.2011 Heard bail prayer of the appellants after receipt of the L.C.R.
The appellants stand convicted under Sections 148 and
307/149 of the Indian Penal Code as well as 27 of the Arms Act.
The prosecution story as per version of the informant in the
F.I.R. was that he along with police party was proceeding to meet the
member of the Peace Committee and in the way, he learnt that riot was
being committed in village Kamarganj and learning this he proceeded
to that village with his police party and saw some houses burning and
rioters being variously armed numbering 500 were there and that
seeing the police party they fled away and crossed the river Ganga and
that from the other side of the river those rioters starting firing on the
police party. It was also alleged that the bullet fired passed close to the
2
members of the police party but nobody was injured and that police
party had also fired on them in their defense.
Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants submits that
this case relates to the offence committed which took place after the
alleged riots and the rioters had crossed the river Ganga. It was also
submitted that the identification and the alleged firing is said to have
been done when the informant and all other members of the
prosecution party were on one side of the river and the rioters namely,
the appellants were on the other side of the river. It was submitted that
identification in such case is only a guess work and it cannot be
believed.
The learned A.P.P. submitted that some villagers had
identified those appellants. It was also submitted that these appellants
were also accused in the case under Section 302 and other Sections of
the Indian Penal Code relating to rioting and they were tried under
Sessions Trial No. 359 of 1990 and that one of these appellants
namely, Mahendra Yadav was also convicted in that Sessions Trial No.
359 of 1990 under Section 302 and other Sections of I.P.C. But learned
counsel for the appellants replied that excepting Mahendra Yadav,
none of the other appellants was convicted in that case. So the plea of
complicity of the other appellants in this case as submitted by the
learned A.P.P. is of no avail to prosecution in this case. It was also
submitted that the only ground of identification which is basis of
conviction in this case is doubtful in view of the facts that it is said to
have been made when these appellants were on the other side of the
3
river at petty long distance because the river Ganga flows in vast sheet
on the land.
Thus hearing both sides and considering that out of these
appellants, the appellant Mahendra Yadav was convicted in the said
rioting case under Sessions Trial No. 359 of 1990, I do not feel
inclined to allow bail to him. Hence, his prayer for bail is refused.
So far the other appellants herein are concerned, it is
submitted that they are in custody since the date of trial court’s
judgment i.e. 31.8.2010.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not feel
inclined to allow bail to them for the present. Hence, prayer for bail is
refused at this stage. However, if so advised, the appellants may renew
his prayer for bail after completion of one year of incarceration from
the date of trial court’s judgment i.e. 31.8.2010.
(C. M. Prasad, J.)
Ravi/-