Dismissed

Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC1 Nov 2017CR. MISC./43195/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Miscellaneous appeal seeking bail in a murder and kidnapping for ransom case. The High Court rejected the bail plea due to the brutality of the crime involving a child victim and the fact that the trial was nearly concluded. The court directed the trial to be completed within four months.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayer rejected; trial directed to be concluded within four months.

Mukesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.43195 of 2017

¶2

Arising Out of PS.Case No. -38 Year- 2016 Thana -JOGAPATTI DistrictWESTCHAMPARAN(BETTIAH)

¶3

====================================================== 1. Mukesh Kumar son of Chandra Bhan Chaudhari Resident of Village - Chandraha Rupwalia, Police Station - Bathwaria (Bagha), District - West Champaran.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar.

¶7

.... .... Opposite Party/s

¶8

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.-7 For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Kanhaiya Kishore ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶9

3 01-11-2017 Heard both sides.

¶10

The petitioner seeks bail in Yogapatti P.S. Case No. 38 of 2016, registered for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. Later on, Sections 364(A), 302, 201, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code were added.

¶11

The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected vide order dated 28.11.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 35611 of 2016 with a direction to conclude the trial within nine months.

¶12

Sri Sanjay Kumar No. 7, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly situated co-accused persons namely Kranti Sahani and Lalita Devi @ Manju have been granted

¶13

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43195 of 2017 (3) dt.01-11-2017 2

¶14

bail vide order dated 26.09.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 26288 of 2016 and vide order dated 26.10.2016 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 37067 of 2016. Krishna Chaudhory @ Kishan Chaudhory and Mamta Devi have been granted bail vide order dated 09.01.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 28606 of 2016 and vide order dated 26.04.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 11646 of 2017. Another coaccused Rajkishore Sahani has also been granted bail vide order dated 17.05.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 20214 of 2017, but I find from the records that a seven year child of the informant was kidnapped and firstly Lalita Devi confessed her guilt and disclosed the names of the accused persons including the petitioner. The petitioner Mukesh Kumar was also apprehended in pursuance of the disclosure made by other accused persons. Some articles were recovered in pursuance of the confession made by the petitioner.

¶15

It appears that the petitioner and others killed the minor boy aged seven years only to get ransom. A report was also called for and learned Additional Sessions Judge III, West Champaran, Bettiah disclosed that 18 witnesses out of 21 witnesses have already been examined and the remaining three witnesses are Government employees. The trial is likely to be concluded very soon.

¶16

Considering the facts aforesaid and the fact that a

¶17

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.43195 of 2017 (3) dt.01-11-2017 3

¶18

minor boy was brutally killed for ransom, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above named on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected.

¶19

The trial court is directed to hold the trial on day-today basis and conclude the same within four months from the date of receipt of this order. The S.P., West Champaran, Bettiah is directed to ensure the presence of the remaining three Government employees, who are witness in this case, on the next day fixed in the trial so that the trial must be concluded within four months.

¶20

Let a copy of this order be transmitted through Fax to the court of learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah and the S.P., West Champaran, Bettiah for information and needful.

¶21

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)

¶22

KKSINHA/-

¶23

U T

Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Kumar Verma and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Raj Gaurav Vs The State Of Bihar

Sheela Devi @ Shila Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Abhishek Ranjan Vs The State Of Bihar Through Economic Offence Unit, Bihar, Patna and Anr.

Dhuri Manjhi Vs The State Of Bihar

Niranjan Kumar @ Kare Lal Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar