This oral order rejected a bail application filed by an accused charged under Sections 364(A) and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, who claimed his name appeared only in a confessional statement. The court held that the prayer for bail was not supported by facts.
Prayer for bail was rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.38389 of 2013
====================================================== Akhilesh Kumar @ Panchu @ Akhileshwar Kumar, S/o Jagdish Sah, R/o Vill. Bam, P.S. Akodhi Gola, District – Rohtas at Sasaram. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 5 01-04-2014 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
Petitioner is accused in connection with Akodhi Gola P.S. Case No. 20 of 2012 registered under Sections 364(A) and 120(B) of the I.P.C.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and his name has come only in the confessional statement of co-accused Ranjan Kumar. Except that, there is nothing against the petitioner and petitioner is in custody since 20.12.2012.
On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer of the petitioner with contention that in course of investigation, the confessional statement of Ranjan Kumar was recorded, who disclosed about pressing the neck of the victim Sanjeet Kumar, son of the informant by this petitioner and one Jitendra and on that very
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.38389 of 2013 (5) dt.01-04-2014
2
basis, the dead body of Sanjeet Kumar was recovered from the bank of the Sone Canal in the sand, as detailed in paragraph no.104 and 108 of the case diary.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of allegation, I am not inclined to allow the prayer of petitioner for bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected.
(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)
Shail/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner be granted bail when charged with offences under Sections 364(A) and 120(B) of I.P.C. and his name appeared only in co-accused's confession.
Akhilesh Kumar @ Panchu @ Akhileshwar Kumar
The State of Bihar
Rajendra Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
