Two petitioners challenging the denial of bail in a murder and arms offence case. The High Court rejected bail due to specific allegations and directed the Trial Court to conclude the trial within one year.
Bail rejected. Trial directed to conclude within one year.
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.71182 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-304 Year-2021 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna
======================================================
SINU KUMAR S/o- Bal Kishun Mahto @ Balkishun Mahto R/o- Rampur, P.S.- Gaurichak, District – Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 11052 of 2022
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-304 Year-2021 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna
======================================================
RAHUL KUMAR SON OF GYANI PASWAN R/O VILLAGEABDULLAHCHAK, P.S.- GOPALPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA-803206
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 71182 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Pradhan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 11052 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Surendra Kishore Thakur, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shailendra Kumar Singh, APP
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 10-08-2022
Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner duly assisted by Arvind Kumar Pradhan in Cr. Misc. No. 71182 of 2021 and Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur in Cr. Misc. No. 11052 of 2022, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
Let the defect(s), if any, as pointed out by the office be removed within four weeks.
The petitioners are in judicial custody in connection with Gaurichak P.S. Case No. 304 of 2021 for the offences
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71182 of 2021(4) dt.10-08-2022 2/3
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
The informant has alleged in the FIR that he got information that his son has been killed by the unknown persons. Accordingly, he lodged the present FIR against unknown persons.
Considering the fact that FIR was lodged against unknown, case diary was called for on 25.05.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a bare perusal of paragraph-49 of the case diary shows that it was the informant himself, who had hatched conspiracy to kill his son in view of the fact that the entire family was disturbed due to his criminal attitude/activities. He as such submitted that on the request of the informant that the accused persons planned the killing. He submits that petitioners herein have no role to play. He further submits that co-accused, namely, Nitish Kumar @ Nitish Kumar Paswan, Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Kumar Sahani and Vinay Singh @ Vinay Kumar Singh have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.07.2022 and 11.07.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 71627 of 2021, Cr. Misc. No. 18 of 2022 and Cr. Misc. No. 5169 of 2022 respectively.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71182 of 2021(4) dt.10-08-2022 3/3
Learned APP, on the other hand, took this Court’s attention to the different paragraphs of the case diary to show that there is specific allegation against both the petitioners Sinu Kumar and Rahul Kumar, who shot at on the head of the deceased. He further submits that even the postmortem report shows two gun shot injury.
Taking into account the specific allegation that has come up during the course of investigation against both the petitioners herein of having shot in the head of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to grant them privilege of bail which is accordingly rejected.
Considering the fact that the petitioners in two cases are in custody since 24.08.2021 and 26.08.2021 respectively the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within one year
Jagdish/-
U T
(Rajiv Roy, J)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to petitioners charged with murder and armed offences.
Whether the trial court should expedite the trial given the length of judicial custody.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sinu Kumar
Rahul Kumar
The State of Bihar
Rajiv Roy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
