IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CR. APP (DB) No.418 of 2008
RAJESH RANJAN @ PAPPU YADAV
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THRU. CBI.
-----------
4 09.07.2008 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel for the C.B.I. in respect of appellant’s prayer for bail as made in
I.A.No.1263 of 2008.
On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that the
appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section-302 only
with the aid of Section-120B of the I.P.C. on the allegation that he was
in conspiracy with co-accused Rajan Tiwary and some others, as
disclosed in the confession of Rajan Tiwary under Section-164 Cr.P.C.(
Ext.35 ). It has been highlighted that the appellant has remained in
custody for 7 ½ years before the trial on the ground that being a
member of Parliament he may influence the trial but now the trial has
concluded and hence, the orders rejecting the bail of the appellant by
this Court and by the Supreme Court at pre-trial stage should not be
treated as relevant any longer. It has further been submitted that except
the retracted confession of a co-accused, which is not substantive
evidence, there is no chain of circumstantial evidence to prove the
charge of conspiracy.
Learned counsel for the C.B.I. has submitted that bail
application of Rajan Tiwary , a co-accused convicted by the same trial
has been rejected on 28.4.2008 by another Bench of this Court and
some evidence has come through P.W.7,P.W.8,P.W.9 and P.W.10 that
there was political rivalry between one of the deceased and this
appellant and there was a hint of threat by the appellant even in public
speeches. It has further been submitted that the trial of some of the co-
accused, such as Amar Yadav and Harish Chaudhary are under progress
and only few witnesses have been examined in those trials, bearing Trial
Nos.1310 of 2005 and 1230 of 2007 and release of the appellant on bail
may have adverse effect upon the witnesses to be examined in that trial
on behalf of the prosecution.
On behalf of the appellant, it has been submitted that another
convicted co-accused Anil Kumar Yadav has been granted bail by
another Bench of this Court when according to the prosecution case, he
was present at the place of occurrence with a Motorcycle and the
shooter after firing escaped on his Motorcycle.
Generally this Court grants bail to an appellant who is not
alleged to have been present at the place of occurrence and who had not
participated in the actual killing of the deceased.
However, considering the submission of the learned counsel
of the C.B.I. in respect of the other trial which is under progress , the
prayer for bail of the appellant is rejected for the present.
Let the hearing of the appeal of the appellant be expedited. If
the appeal cannot be heard within six months then the appellant may
renew his prayer for bail.
( Shiva Kirti Singh, J)
( Abhijit Sinha, J)
NKS/-