The Patna High Court rejected bail for the father of the victim in a murder case, concluding he assaulted the deceased while witnessing the victim talking to his daughter, contrary to the petitioner's claim of innocent involvement.
Bail application rejected; trial expedited to conclude within one year.
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.5334 of 2015
| Arising Out of PS.Case No. -55 Year- 2014 Thana -EKMA District- SARAN | |
|---|---|
| ====================================================== 1. Parshuram Mahto Son of Late Ramdeo Mahto Resident of Village - Tarbaniya, P.S- Ekma , Distt- Saran. |
|
| .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Renu Kumari(App) ====================================================== |
|
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER |
|
| 3 | 11-03-2015 Heard both sides. |
| The petitioner seeks bail in Ekma P.S. Case No. | |
| 55 of 2014 registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. | |
| The mother of the deceased found the dead body of his son in the | |
| field of Chatthu Mahto. During the course of investigation one | |
| Dhananjay Kumar was examined under section 164 Cr.P.C. and | |
| he disclosed that Nitesh had love with Manisha the daughter of | |
| the petitioner and they were talking but in the meantime petitioner came there and assaulted Nitesh as a result he died. |
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Manisha lodged a case under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against Arvind and Dhananjay. She disclosed that Arvind and Dhananjay Kumar committed rape with her but when Nitesh came
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.5334 of 2015 (3) dt.11-03-2015
2/2
there to protect Manisha, Arvind and Dhananjay Kumar assaulted him. Except the statement of Dhananjay there is no material to show the involvement of the petitioner. From perusal of the record it appears that the deceased had gone to see orchestra and her dead body was found. The deceased had love affairs with Mianish the daughter of the petitioner. Dhananjay Kumar has disclosed the fact that it was the petitioner who assaulted Nitesh when he saw the deceased talking with his daughter and consequently he died. Later on the daughter of the petitioner also filed a complaint case after much delay making allegation of rape against Dhananjay.
Considering the facts aforesaid, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly the same is rejected. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
M.Rahman/U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted bail in a case involving murder under Section 302 IPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Parshuram Mahto
The State of Bihar
PRABHAT KUMAR JHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
