Appeal against refusal of bail was dismissed by the High Court. The court upheld the trial court's order, noting the specific serious allegations and the nature of the offence involved in the instant SC/ST case.
Bail to the appellant was denied; appeal dismissed; trial to be expedited.
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 APPEAL (SJ) No.549 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-305 Year-2021 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Raunak Kumar @ Munna @ Munna Kumar @ Jaliyavasum, Son of Ajit Ray, R/o village- Ramnagar Colony, Gosaitola, P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna
... ... Appellant/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mrs.Arpana Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr.Sadanand Paswan, Spl. PP For the Respondent No.2 : Mr. Nagmani Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-09-2022
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl.PP for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
Let the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from the date of resumption of physical filing and physical removal of defect.
This is an appeal under Section 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the refusal of prayer for bail by order dated 22.12.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-IIIcum-special Judge (SC/ST), Patna in connection with Special Case No. 235 of 2021 arising out of Danapur P.S. Case No. 305 of 2021, registered for the alleged offences under Sections 302 and 34 of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.549 of 2022 dt.22-09-2022 2/3
the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.
As per the prosecution case, the husband of the informant was shot at by two youths in the background of dispute over parking of vehicles. The appellant is stated to be one of the youths, who fired upon the husband of the informant.
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not named in the FIR and nothing incriminating has been recovered from his conscious possession. Though the informant has named one Ajit Kumar who called the deceased for cleaning the tank but he was not sent up for trial and this appellant was made accused in this case. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant has been named in this case on the basis of CCTV footage and the name was disclosed by the informer of the police. Learned counsel further submits that except for this material, nothing has come up against this appellant to connect him with the alleged occurrence. The appellant is in custody since 23.05.2021 and the charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.
Learned Spl.PP as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 vehemently opposes the submission made on behalf of the appellant. Learned Spl.PP submits that there is specific allegation against the appellant and the same has been supported by the informant in her statement in paragraph 18 of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.549 of 2022 dt.22-09-2022 3/3
case diary. In paragraph 12 of the case diary the witness has stated that he saw the appellant shooting the husband of the informant in his head. On the basis of CCTV footage this appellant was identified. The appellant shot dead the husband of the informant on a minor dispute. Other witnesses in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the case diary have also named the appellant who was identified in CCTV footage.
Perused the records.
Having regard to the submissions made hereinabove and considering the specific and serious nature of allegation against the appellant that he fired upon the husband of the informant and shot him dead, I am not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
balmukund/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 24.09.2022 |
| Transmission Date | 24.09.2022 |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the appellant who is alleged to have caused the death of the deceased under the SC/ST Act and IPC.
Whether the allegations made in the FIR and case diary regarding the appellant firing upon and killing the deceased are sufficient to deny bail.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Raunak Kumar @ Munna @ Munna Kumar @ Jaliyavasum
The State of Bihar
Durga Devi
Arun Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
