This story is from June 1, 2021

Madhepura district court rejects Pappu Yadav's bail plea in 32-yr-old kidnapping case

The court of district judge Ramesh Chand Malviya rejected the bail petition on grounds that Yadav has intentionally and deliberately misused the privilege of the bail granted earlier for 28 years and it is due to his latches that the case could not be disposed of in time.
Madhepura district court rejects Pappu Yadav's bail plea in 32-yr-old kidnapping case
Pappu Yadav. (File photp)
PATNA: The Madhepura district and sessions court on Tuesday rejected the regular bail petition of former MP cum JAP chief Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav in the 32-year-old kidnapping case against him.
The court of district judge Ramesh Chand Malviya rejected the bail petition on grounds that Yadav has intentionally and deliberately misused the privilege of the bail granted earlier for 28 years and it is due to his latches that the case could not be disposed of in time.

The court also directed the ACJM court to commit the kidnapping case to the sessions court within a month. It also observed that Yadav may move bail petition again if commitment of the case is not done within six months.
It was on December 16, 1993 that an ACJM court in Madhepura had cancelled the bail bond of Yadav in the case after he failed to appear for hearing on altogether 26 occasions.
A battery of lawyers including senior counsel Manan Kumar Mishra assisted by Manoj Kumar Ambashth and Sanjeev Kumar appeared for Yadav on Tuesday arguing that no summons or notice was ever served to the petitioner for appearance in the case.
They also submitted that the lawyer responsible for representing Yadav had stopped appearing due to which bond was cancelled and he could not know about it.
Court was also apprised that Yadav remained in judicial custody from 1999 to 2013 in a CBI case and he was never remanded in the present kidnapping case but court remained dissatisfied that no explanation was given prior and after the custody period in the case.

Court also didn’t agree on arguments that the two kidnapping victims have compromised with Yadav on grounds that such a criminal case is non-compoundable.
Public prosecutor Indra Kant Chaudhary, opposing all pleas, submitted that the case against other accused has already been disposed of after commitment but it could not be done against Yadav due to his latches.
Chaudhary also submitted that Yadav had mentioned about the kidnapping case in his nomination papers in last year’s assembly election denoting he was aware of it but didn’t appear. He also submitted that Yadav is an influential person and if he is released on bail then the case could be committed in near future.
Yadav was arrested from Patna on March 11. He was first arrested for lockdown violation by Patna police over an FIR lodged by a magistrate with Pirbahore police station as he had reached Patna medical college and hospital with supporters.
He was set free on personal bond in the Pirbahore case but was kept detained on official request of Madhepura police that a non-bailable warrant is pending against him.
He was taken to Madhepura and was forwarded to judicial custody after production before a court.
A Madhepura ACJM court had issued a non-bailable warrant against Yadav in September last year for continuously not appearing in the kidnapping case registered against him and 10 others with Murliganj police station in 1989.
In March this year, court ordered for attaching Yadav’s property in Khurda village under Kumarkhand police station area in Madhepura as he was evading arrest.
Yadav’s arrest hd drawn flak from politicians and well as common people as it came at a time when he was continuously exposing the severe shortcomings and lack of infrastructure in government hospitals for treating Covid-19 patients amid its second wave and had allegedly unearthed several ambulances lying unused and covered at Amnaur in Saran purchased from MP-LAD fund of BJP MP Rajeev Pratap Rudy.
Two days before arrest, an FIR was registered against Yadav with Amnaur police station for forced entry, damaging the vehicles and misbehaving with care takers present there.
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA