Allowed

Bikash Kumar @ Bikash Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC2 Jan 2019CR. MISC./71573/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition for bail, the Patna High Court granted relief to the petitioner, who was awaiting trial for murder and arms offences, directing him to furnish a bail bond with two sureties and one property owner surety.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of like amount and one close relative with immovable properties as surety.

Bikash Kumar @ Bikash Sahni Vs The State Of Bihar — Cheque Dishonour | Patna HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.71573 of 2018

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-185 Year-2016 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria

¶3

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

¶4

Bikash Kumar @ Bikash Sahni Son of Fuldeo Sahni, Resident of VillageKulhariya, P.S. Parbatta. District Khagaria.

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vindhya Keshari Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ravi Shankar Pathak, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar -2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL

¶6

ORAL ORDER

¶7

2 02-01-2019

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶9

Petitioner had earlier moved for bail twice in Cr. Misc. No. 41727 of 2017 which was rejected vide order dated 12.10.2017 and in Cr. Misc. No. 30499 of 2018 which was rejected on 18.07.2018.

¶10

Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 16.06.2017 in connection with S.C. No. 389 of 2016/290 of 2017 arising out of Parbatta P.S. Case No. 185 of 2016 for

¶11

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.71573 of 2018(2) dt.02-01-2019 2/4

¶12

offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

¶13

The prosecution case as lodged by the informant is that while her husband Sudhir Sahni (deceased) was returning to the house at 9 p.m. at the night, the petitioner along with four others surrounded him. Allegation upon the petitioner and one Rabin Sahani is that they fired from close range on the husband of the informant which hit the deceased on his temporal region while the three other co-accused tried to escape with the dead body in the motorcycle but with the interference of local people they left the dead body and ran away. It is further alleged in the F.I.R. that the cause of dispute was that the petitioner had taken 17,000/- from the deceased and was not returning it which was the cause of the aforesaid occurrence.

¶14

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case. He submits that there is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence as the informant and the local villagers reached the place of occurrence after the incident and that all the other accused have been granted the privilege of bail by coordinate Benches of this Court. He submits that although there is allegation of firing by the petitioner and co-accused Rabin

¶15

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.71573 of 2018(2) dt.02-01-2019 3/4

¶16

Sahani but there is only one entry and exit wound of firing and it is not ascertainable as to whether it was the petitioner who had fired on the deceased. He submits that co-accused on similar allegation has been granted the privilege of bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 52188 of 2016 vide order dated 10.01.2017.

¶17

However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail stating therein that there was a motive behind the said incident and the petitioner has been named in the F.I.R.

¶18

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on record and that on similar allegation another co-accused has been granted the privilege of bail, let the 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 the learned Presiding Officer, F.T.C.I., Khagaria in connection with S.C. No. 389 of 2016/290 of 2017 arising out of Parbatta P.S. Case No. 185 of 2016, subject to the conditions:-

¶19

(1) One of the bailors would be close relative of the petitioner having sufficient immovable properties, who will file an affidavit stating his relationship with the petitioner.

¶20

(2) The petitioner will appear before the learned Court

¶21

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.71573 of 2018(2) dt.02-01-2019 4/4

¶22

below during trial as and when required and failure to appear on two consecutive dates without assigning any reason will entail cancellation of his bail bonds.

¶23

(Nilu Agrawal, J)

¶24

devendra/-

¶25

U T

Bikash Kumar @ Bikash Sahni v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bikash Kumar @ Bikash Sahni 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

Chandradip Mahto Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Allauddin @ Allauddin @ Allaudeen Miyan Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Nilam Devi Vs The State Bank Of India Through The Chief General Manager and Ors.

Sudha Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Pankaj Sah Vs The State Of Bihar

Arvind Singh @ Arvind Kumar @ Arvind Sharma Vs The State Of Bihar