Allowed

Mohammad Shabir @ Jaheed @ Tanveer @ Shabir v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC1 May 2019CR. MISC./26022/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order granted bail in criminal miscellaneous petitions arising from a murder FIR under Sections 302/326 IPC and the Arms Act. The court identified infirmities in the prosecution witness's account, including a delay in implicating the petitioners, and directed their release upon furnishing a bail bond and sureties with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 each with two sureties of the like amount each.

Mohammad Shabir @ Jaheed @ Tanveer @ Shabir Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26022 of 2018

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-704 Year-2017 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Mohammad Shabir @ Jaheed @ Tanveer @ Shabir Son of Md. Munna, Resident of Mohalla- Sanichra Mandir, New Ajimabad Colony, P.S.Bahadurpur, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

======================================================

¶10

with

¶11

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34590 of 2018

¶12

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-704 Year-2017 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna

¶13

======================================================

¶14

Shankar Choudhary son of Late Ganesh Choudhary @ Late Ganesh Prasad, Resident of Yarpur Devi Sthan Nimtar, P.S.- Gardanibagh, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State Of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶19

====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 26022 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Rajeev, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajay Mishra , APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34590 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Samir Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rabindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

10 01-05-2019

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

¶23

counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶24

The petitioners are languishing in custody for the offences punishable under Sections 326/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶25

The FIR of the occurrence of murder of Nirbhay Kumar Singh was lodged by his brother Ajay Kumar against

¶26

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26022 of 2018(10) dt.01-05-2019 2/3

¶27

unknown. Ajay Kumar claims to be an eyewitness of the occurrence and he said that unknown criminals fired at Nirbhay Kumar Singh causing his immediate death near the cinema hall of the informant.

¶28

During investigation suspicion was raised against other co-accused as they were involved in realization of ransom from the local businessmen, which was being protested by the deceased being leader of the business community. Some other accused stated that he has also grudge against the deceased as the deceased was not refunding his money. The FIR was lodged on 15.09.2017. Thereafter, on 03.10.2017 Ratnesh Kumar, the uncle of the deceased and the informant, stated before the police that he had seen the occurrence and the petitioners as well as co-accused Amit Kumar had fired causing injury to the deceased.

¶29

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that petitioners are in custody since 28.09.2017. If witness Ratnesh Kumar would have seen the occurrence, there was no reason that the name of the petitioners did not surface in the first information report; rather petitioners have been implicated as a result of after thought consequence.

¶30

Contention is that Ratnesh Kumar has already been examined during the course of trial as prosecution witness No.1 and in the cross-examination he stated that at the time of

¶31

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26022 of 2018(10) dt.01-05-2019 3/3

¶32

occurrence informant was also there but this witness had no talk with the informant. This also makes the prosecution allegation suspicious for the purpose of consideration of this prayer for bail.

¶33

Learned counsel for the informant submits that the petitioners are the main assailant of the deceased. They were apprehended by the police from Mumbai and the trial is at the verge of conclusion.

¶34

Considering the aforesaid infirmity, let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court-below where the case is pending in connection with Bihta P.S. Case No.704 of 2017, with following conditions:

¶35

(a) Both the bailors shall be the resident of territorial jurisdiction of the learned Court-below having immovable property.

¶36

(b) The petitioners shall fully cooperate with the trial of the case, failing which the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioners.

¶37

(Birendra Kumar, J)

¶38

Mkr./-

Mohammad Shabir @ Jaheed @ Tanveer @ Shabir v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Shabir @ Jaheed @ Tanveer @ Shabir 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Noor Alam @ Kinnu Vs The State of Bihar

Abhay Yadav @ Gobind Jee Vs The State of Bihar

Chandan Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Sk. Neshar Vs The State Of Bihar

Ratnesh Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Sanjay Kumar Sah Vs The State of Bihar