Allowed

Rustam Yadav @ Rustam Kumar @ Rustan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC1 Mar 2021CR. APP (SJ)/1091/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows the criminal appeal against an order rejecting bail. The High Court set aside the lower court's refusal, citing lack of specific identification and reliance solely on a confessional statement, and enlarged the appellant on bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

The appellant is enlarged on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to specific conditions regarding court presence and non-interference with evidence.

Rustam Yadav @ Rustam Kumar @ Rustan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1091 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2020 Thana- BITHAN BAZAR District- Samastipur

¶3

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

¶4

RUSTAM YADAV @ RUSTAM KUMAR @ RUSTAN KUMAR S/o Ramchandra Yadav Resident of Village- Suraha Bashantpur, P.S.- Bithan, District- Samastipur.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr.Abhimanyu Sharma For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶10

2 01-03-2021 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special P.P. for the State.

¶11

The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 06.11.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Samastipur in connection with Bithan P.S. Case No. 19/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the prayer for regular bail of appellants was rejected.

¶12

As per the prosecution case, while the father of the informant was returning home on motorcycle along with the

¶13

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1091 of 2021(2) dt.01-03-2021 2/3

¶14

infromant, six miscreants on three motorcycles intercepted him, asked his name and one of the miscreants shot him as a result of which he died on the way to hospital. It is further alleged that four named accused persons with whom informant’s father has animosity have committed murder of his father.

¶15

It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that appellant is not named in the FIR, his name surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Nasiruddin Sah which has no evidentiary value. It is further submitted that save and except confessional statement, there is no cogent material to show the complicity of this petitioner with the aforesaid crime. It is next submitted that FIR has been lodged against four known persons against whom there is specific allegation that they have killed his father with the help of unknown miscreants. It is submitted that informant’s friend Rakesh Kumar, who was witness of the occurrence, failed to identify any of the miscreants and has not named this petitioner or raised any doubt against this petitioner. Chargesheet has already been submitted in this case. Petitioner is in custody since 10.08.2020 having no criminal antecedent.

¶16

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as nature of allegation, the impugned order dated

¶17

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1091 of 2021(2) dt.01-03-2021 3/3

¶18

06.11.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Samastipur in connection with Bithan P.S. Case No. 19/2020 is set aside and appeal is allowed.

¶19

Accordingly, let the appellant, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Samastipur, in connection with Bithan P.S. Case No. 19/2020, subject to following conditions:-

¶20

(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present, as directed by the Court on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail-bonds shall be cancelled by the Court below.

¶21

(2) If the petitioner tempers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶22

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)

¶23

Saif/-

¶24

U T

Rustam Yadav @ Rustam Kumar @ Rustan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rustam Yadav @ Rustam Kumar @ Rustan 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

Sunita Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Murshid @ Danttota Vs the State of Bihar

Rajesh Singh @ Rajesh Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Rangila Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Swaroop Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Natho Mahto @ Nathuni Mahto Vs The State of Bihar