In a bail application arising from a murder trial, the High Court granted bail to the petitioner, a co-accused languishing in custody, directing him to furnish a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.
Enlargement of petitioner on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount each.
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.59054 of 2018
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -30 Year- 2008 Thana -SINGHESHWAR District- MADHEPURA
====================================================== Santosh Sah S/o Daya Ram Sah, R/o Vill.- Gauripur, P.S.- Singeshwar , District- Madhepura.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dinesh Prasad Verma For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Manish Kumar 2
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER
3 31-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
Earlier the petitioner moved for bail which was rejected vide order dated 07.11.2017 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 42250 of 2017.
Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 30.01.2017 in connection with Sessions Trial No. 59 (B) of 2009 arising out of Singeshwar P.S. Case No. 30 of 2008 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case, as lodged by the Chowkidar, is
that a male dead body was found near Karua Dhar bridge.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is innocent, not named in the F.I.R. and just
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.59054 of 2018 (3) dt.31-10-2018
2/3
because he has a criminal antecedent, he has been made accused in the present case. He further submits that co-accused Pintu @ Krishna on whose confessional statement, the name of the petitioner surfaced has since been granted the privilege of bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 18837 of 2009 on 07.08.2009 and that the trial has not made much headway as only two witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. He submits that he has not been named in the F.I.R., there is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence and the motive is also not made out from the case diary to have committed such offence.
However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail stating therein that the petitioner does not have a clean antecedent as many as 9 cases are pending against him although in two he has been acquitted.
In this regard, a report was called for from the trial court and by letter no. 65 dated 25.10.2018 sent by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-II, Madhepura where it has been stated that only two witnesses have been examined and letters have been written to the D.I.G. to procure the attendance of the witnesses and the trial could conclude within six months subject to attendance of the prosecution witnesses.
Considering the facts and circumstances and the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.59054 of 2018 (3) dt.31-10-2018
3/3
materials on record and other co-accused has already been granted the privilege of bail and that trial has not made much headway, let petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.D.J. 1st Madhepura in connection with Sessions Trial No. 59 (B) of 2009 arising out of Singeshwar P.S. Case No. 30 of 2008, subject to the conditions that:
(Nilu Agrawal, J)
Devendra/Priyanka
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in the murder attempt case.
Santosh Sah
The State of Bihar
Nilu Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
