Alleged of open firing and killing the informant’s son in the name of caste rivalry denied bail as per Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code: High Court of Patna
Petitioners were alleged to open firing and killing the son of the informant. The petitioner tried furnishing the grounds that the same has been done by the opposite party and that they have been the rivalry castes and they didn’t have good relations in past as well. the petitioner was denied bail and the Court dismissed the appeal. The Hon’ble High Court of Patna before Justice Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah in the matter Lalan Yadav and Others v. The State of Bihar[Criminal Miscellaneous No. 35568 of 2020].  
The facts of the case were that the Petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection with Case, instituted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. According to the petitioner, they arrived at the market area and began firing in the air and threatening others, after which they summoned other co-accused, and the informant’s son was hurt and died on the way to the hospital as a result of the indiscriminate firing. 

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the petitioners’ mother, she has also filed a lawsuit for the same incident. According to learned counsel, the police have now filed a third complaint in connection with the incident. The petitioners are brothers who have been wrongfully accused due to a disagreement between two castes. They had no involvement in the occurrence. It was also claimed that they had been accused because of the previous animosity. 

The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the father of the deceased in normal circumstances would not blame the innocents for killing his son and try to save the real murderers. He further added,” allegation is against the present two petitioners with regard to their role in starting the whole episode and also making indiscriminate firing and even if it is assumed that the firing made by the petitioners may not have hit the deceased, the same is irrelevant as they were very much party to the firing and thus, the responsibility for the death has to be equally taken by all the accused, including the petitioners.” 

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.” The petition was dismissed and petitioners were allowed to again apply for the pray of bail in the future and the same shall be considered on its own merits.
Click Here To Read The Judgment 
Judgment reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The facts of the case were that the Petitioner was apprehended arrest in connection with Case, instituted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. According to the petitioner, they arrived at the market area and began firing in the air and threatening others, after which they summoned other co-accused, and the informant’s son was hurt and died on the way to the hospital as a result of the indiscriminate firing.  
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the petitioners’ mother, she has also filed a lawsuit for the same incident. According to learned counsel, the police have now filed a third complaint in connection with the incident. The petitioners are brothers who have been wrongfully accused due to a disagreement between two castes. They had no involvement in the occurrence. It was also claimed that they had been accused because of the previous animosity. 

The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the father of the deceased in normal circumstances would not blame the innocents for killing his son and try to save the real murderers. He further added,” allegation is against the present two petitioners with regard to their role in starting the whole episode and also making indiscriminate firing and even if it is assumed that the firing made by the petitioners may not have hit the deceased, the same is irrelevant as they were very much party to the firing and thus, the responsibility for the death has to be equally taken by all the accused, including the petitioners.” 

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.” The petition was dismissed and petitioners were allowed to again apply for the pray of bail in the future and the same shall be considered on its own merits.
Click Here To Read The Judgment 
Judgment reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the petitioners’ mother, she has also filed a lawsuit for the same incident. According to learned counsel, the police have now filed a third complaint in connection with the incident. The petitioners are brothers who have been wrongfully accused due to a disagreement between two castes. They had no involvement in the occurrence. It was also claimed that they had been accused because of the previous animosity.  
The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the father of the deceased in normal circumstances would not blame the innocents for killing his son and try to save the real murderers. He further added,” allegation is against the present two petitioners with regard to their role in starting the whole episode and also making indiscriminate firing and even if it is assumed that the firing made by the petitioners may not have hit the deceased, the same is irrelevant as they were very much party to the firing and thus, the responsibility for the death has to be equally taken by all the accused, including the petitioners.” 

The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.” The petition was dismissed and petitioners were allowed to again apply for the pray of bail in the future and the same shall be considered on its own merits.
Click Here To Read The Judgment 
Judgment reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the father of the deceased in normal circumstances would not blame the innocents for killing his son and try to save the real murderers. He further added,” allegation is against the present two petitioners with regard to their role in starting the whole episode and also making indiscriminate firing and even if it is assumed that the firing made by the petitioners may not have hit the deceased, the same is irrelevant as they were very much party to the firing and thus, the responsibility for the death has to be equally taken by all the accused, including the petitioners.”  
The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.” The petition was dismissed and petitioners were allowed to again apply for the pray of bail in the future and the same shall be considered on its own merits.
Click Here To Read The Judgment 
Judgment reviewed By Nimisha Dublish
 The Hon’ble High Court of Patna held,” Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners.” The petition was dismissed and petitioners were allowed to again apply for the pray of bail in the future and the same shall be considered on its own merits.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.355620 Arising Out of PS. Case No. 99 Year 2020 Thana GAYA MUFASIL District Gaya Lalan Yadav aged about 40 yearsSon of Sidheshwar Yadav 2. Guddu Yadav @ Army @ Guddu Kumar aged about 35 yearsSon of Sidheshwar Yadav District Gaya Both petitioner no. 1 and 2 are resident of Village Budhgere P.S. Moffasil The State of Bihar ... Petitioner s ... Opposite Party s For the Petitioner s For the State CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH Mr. S S P Yadav Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary APP Date : 22 06 2021 The matter has been heard via video conferencing 2. Heard Mr. S S P Yadav learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary learned Additional Public Prosecutorfor the 3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with Moffasil PS Case No. 920 dated 10.03.2020 instituted under Sections 302 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.355620 dt.22 06 2021 Arms Act 1959 4. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had come to the market place and had started firing in the air and threatening that they will do whatever they want and thereafter they had called other co accused and in the indiscriminate firing the informant’s son was injured and died on way to hospital 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no specific allegation as to whose firing hit the deceased and the allegation is only general and omnibus of firing. It was submitted that the mother of the petitioners has also filed a case for the same incident. Learned counsel submitted that the police have also filed a third case relating to the incident. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are brothers and because there was conflict between two castes they have been falsely implicated and they had no role in the incident. It was further submitted that because of previous enmity they have been 6. Learned APP submitted that there is no occasion for the informant who is the father of the deceased to specifically name the petitioners as no father would save the murderer of his son by only implicating persons who are innocent. It was Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.355620 dt.22 06 2021 submitted that the false implication could have been there only when the real culprit was also made accused even though they may have been unknown but in the present case specific allegation is against the present two petitioners with regard to their role in starting the whole episode and also making indiscriminate firing and even if it is assumed that the firing made by the petitioners may not have hit the deceased the same is irrelevant as they were very much party to the firing and thus the responsibility for the death has to be equally taken by all the accused including the petitioners. He submitted that even the FIR lodged by the mother of the petitioners is clearly an afterthought to create a defence as the same has been lodged on 16.03.2020 though the incident is said to have taken place on 10.03.2020 and the present case as well as the police case have been lodged on the same day of the incident i.e. 7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties the Court is not inclined to grant pre arrest bail to the petitioners 8. Accordingly the application stands dismissed 9. However in view of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners it is observed that if the petitioners appear Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.355620 dt.22 06 2021 before the Court below and pray for bail the same shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law without being prejudiced by the present order (Ahsanuddin Amanullah J