Petitioner sought bail in a Section 302/34 IPC and Arms Act case. The High Court granted bail, noting the absence of independent legal material besides confessions and that other co-accused had already been granted bail.
Directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties.
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.17983 of 2017
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -101 Year- 2016 Thana -ITADHI District- BUXAR
======================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Asha Devi (APP)
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER
3 24-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Itarhi P.S
Case No. 101 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.
The petitioner is not named in the First Informant Report and on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Santosh Paswan and further on the basis of confessional statement of the petitioner made in another case he has been remanded in this case, though in the First Information Report there is specific allegation against the F.I.R. named accused persons. The petitioner without any fault is suffering in custody since
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.17983 of 2017 (3) dt.24-05-2017
2/2
27.11.2016, he has been falsely implicated in this case, other coaccused Ravi Ranjan Rajak, Shamsher Miya and Gyan Prakash Chaudhary have already been allowed bail either regular or anticipatory and, as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration.
Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer of bail.
In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that besides confession there is no other legal material against the petitioner and, as such, petitioner is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.- II, Buxar, in connection with Itarhi P.S. Case No. 101 of 2016, 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 petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.)
Rajiv/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves bail given lack of independent evidence against him compared to his co-accused who were granted bail.
Chaturi Bhar @ Ramashish Bhar
The State of Bihar
Jitendra Mohan Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
