Allowed

Kant Lal Sharma and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC14 Oct 2015CR. MISC./26964/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Patna granted bail to Kant Lal Sharma and Sunil Sharma accused of murder under IPC sections 302 and 120(B). The court considered alleged false implication, lack of eye-witness identification, and previous acquittals while imposing standard bail bonds and attendance conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to be released on bail on furnishing bonds of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties of like amount each.

Kant Lal Sharma and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.26964 of 2015

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -83 Year- 2015 Thana -BELDAUR District- KHAGARIA ====================================================== 1. Kant Lal Sharma son of Late Lakhan Sharma, Resident of villageSaraswati Nagar, Itmadi, Police Station- Beldaur, District- Khagaria. 2. Sunil Sharma Son of Ranjit Sharma Resident of Village - Lalgole, Police Station - Beldaur, District - Khagaria. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER

¶3

3 14-10-2015 Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make correction in paragraph-1 of the bail petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well

¶4

as the learned A.P.P.

¶5

The petitioners seek bail in a case for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 120 (B)/34 of the I.P.C and section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶6

The deceased, brother of the informant, namely, Mithilesh Mandal was returning to his house after purchasing bamboo on the motorcycle and as soon as reached near Ghor Bathna Itmadi at guide embankment in front of field of Noori Mian the petitioners and other F.I.R. named accused persons

¶7

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26964 of 2015 (3) dt.14-10-2015

¶8

2/3

¶9

stopped him and shot him causing his death. It is also alleged that earlier the accused persons have committed murder of two brothers of the informant under the conspiracy of accused Lukho Sharma.

¶10

Submission is of false implication due to previous enmity and suspicion. The informant is not an eye witness and in his further statement the informant has stated that the deceased was coming with one Prakash Ram on the motorcycle and in presence of Prakash Ram the occurrence took place and that Prakash Ram in paragraph 13 of the case diary has stated that two persons involved in the crime who have covered their faces and he did not identify any one. The petitioners are suffering in custody since 27.04.2015. They have got criminal antecedents but in most of the cases they have been acquitted. Charge sheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence. The confessional statement made before police has got no evidentiary value in the eye of law and as such the petitioners deserve sympathetic consideration.

¶11

The learned A.P.P. opposes prayer for bail by submitting that the informant and the witness Anil Mandal in paragraph-10 of the case diary have stated the names of the petitioners and others, but it is true that they are not the eye

¶12

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.26964 of 2015 (3) dt.14-10-2015

¶13

3/3

¶14

witnesses and the eye witness of the occurrence has not identified any of the culprits.

¶15

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of A.K. Gond, J.M. Khagaria in Beldaur P.S. Case No. 83 of 2015/ G.R. No. 1012 of 2015, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioners shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on their part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioners from privilege of bail.

¶16

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J)

¶17

Abhay/-

¶18

U T

Kant Lal Sharma and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kant Lal Sharma and Anr. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jalandhar Ray Vs The State Of Bihar

Ram Gyan Prasad @ Mukhiya Ji @ Ram Dhyan Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar Through Economic Offence Unit, Patna

Sujeet Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar

Raju Rai @ Krishna Rai Vs The State Of Bihar

Ram Sewak Mehta @ Ram Sewak Mahto @ Ram Sewak Mahtha Vs The State Of Bihar

Vishal Kumar @ Vishal Singh Vs The State Of Bihar