Dismissed

Mukesh Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC5 Aug 2013CR. MISC./15051/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order refuses regular bail to the petitioner pending trial in Sessions Case No. 730/2012. The High Court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, ensure the petitioner's presence via video conferencing if needed, and submit a complete case diary for future reviews.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for regular bail refused; trial directed to proceed expeditiously; transcription of complete case diary advised.

Mukesh Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.15051 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== Mukesh Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar, Son of Sri Ram Lakhan Prasad, Resident of Village- Rahmanpur, P.S.- Asthawan, District- Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA C.A.V. ORDER

¶3

5 05-08-2013 The petitioner, who is languishing in custody, seeks bail in a case, instituted against unknown, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 364(A), 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

¶4

2. This is 4^th attempt on behalf of the petitioner, whose prayer for regular bail was refused initially on 26.02.2010 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 6042 of 2010 by a Bench of this Court with the observation that “………… On the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner, dead body of the deceased boy was also recovered ………. .” However, taking into consideration the petitioner being in custody since 01.05.2007, it was further observed “…………. The trial of the petitioner be expedited. In case the trial is not concluded within a year, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail.”

¶5

3. In the light of order aforementioned, the prayer was renewed by filing Cr. Misc. No. 10172 of 2011, but again

¶6

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15051 of 2013 (5) dt.05-08-2013 2/5

¶7

turned down by same Hon’ble Judge on 18.05.2011, apart from others, taking into consideration that the case could not have been committed due to non-production of the petitioner, but opportunity was given to the petitioner to renew the prayer after framing of the charge.

¶8

4. A pre-matured renewal of the prayer was made through filing Cr. Misc. No. 23524 of 2012, but since the said Bench was not available due to superannuation, it was placed before this Bench and on taking into consideration the previous two orders aforementioned as well the delay being caused due to the petitioner being detained at difference places in connection with other cases, prayer had been refused vide order dated 12.10.2012 with a direction to the trial court to take all necessary steps ensuring production of the petitioner, even by taking recourse of video conferencing, try to proceed with the case enabling the petitioner to renew the prayer before the court below itself after commencement of the trial which he unsuccessfully did and, thereafter, the present application.

¶9

5. Apart from the period of custody (though at various places in connection with other cases), the contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that in fact the dead body of the victim was not recovered at the confessional

¶10

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15051 of 2013 (5) dt.05-08-2013 3/5

¶11

statement of the petitioner and some how or the other it was under impression of the Hon’ble Bench that it was recovered on extra judicial confession of the petitioner. Consequently, along with status report from the court below indicating expected time to conclude the trial xerox copy of the original case diary was also called for which was made available, but shockingly, it is only up to incomplete paragraph no.-160 dated 26.05.2007 and it is further unfortunate on the part of Bar that such inadequate compliance was not placed during course of making submissions, after conclusion of which, due to paucity of time, the order was kept reserved.

¶12

6. In this case, instituted against unknown, petitioner’s name emerged during investigation on basis of calls coming from mobile of abducted victim while attempts were being made to trace out the culprits and the victim. On perusal of the case diary received it is evident from paragraph no.-120 that in connection with a case of Sultanganj police station the petitioner was apprehended and he in his extra judicial confession also confessed his involvement in the present case. The investigation further proceeded and paragraph no.-130 of the case diary indicates apprehension and confessional statement of another culprit, namely, Sirodhan Kumar @ Laden, who in his extra

¶13

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15051 of 2013 (5) dt.05-08-2013 4/5

¶14

judicial confession stated the wrong being done with the abducted son of the informant of this case by him and his associates including this petitioner. No doubt, at his instance vide paragraph nos.-134 & 135 in very horrible condition the right hand of the boy with his clothes were recovered which was subsequently identified by his family members.

¶15

7. It is also submitted and evident from Annexure-3 that said Sirodhan Kumar @ Laden has already been convicted and sentenced, but released on bail in pursuance of order dated 08.07.2011 passed in Cr. App. (DB) No. 370 of 2011 preferred by him. But, since the petitioner was involved and detained in connection with other cases at different places his trial has just commenced on 17.01.2013 after order passed by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 23524 of 2012 and on perusal of the report received, it appears that the trial court expects the conclusion of the trial preferably within nine months.

¶16

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed above, the prayer for regular bail of the above named petitioner, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 730 of 2012 arising out of Kadamkuan (Kankarbagh) P.S. Case No. 933 of 2006, pending before learned Additional District Judge - VII, Patna, is hereby refused with a direction to the trial court to

¶17

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15051 of 2013 (5) dt.05-08-2013 5/5

¶18

proceed expeditiously with the trial and do all the needful in accordance with law to ensure its expectation true.

¶19

9. Simultaneously, the trial court is also advised to be vigilant and attentive in future while complying the directions of superior courts and should have transmitted the complete copy of case diary, incomplete compliance is not at all advisable.

¶20

(Akhilesh Chandra, J)

¶21

Praveen-II/-

Mukesh Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biso Choudhary and Anr. Vs State of Bihar

Priyanka Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Home Department, Government Of Bihar and Ors.

Hiralal Mahto Vs the Union of India

Harihar Singh and Anr. Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Bablu Singh Vs State of Bihar

Pushpa Priyadarshani Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.