Allowed

Gabbar Mandal v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC20 Sept 2022CR. MISC./12801/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner accused of kidnapping and killing. Noting a lack of material connecting him to the crime and considering his clean antecedents and custody period, the court ordered his release upon furnishing a bond with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on bail by furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of like amount each.

Gabbar Mandal Vs The State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12801 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-219 Year-2020 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger

¶3

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

¶4

Gabbar Mandal, Son of Deoki Mandal, Resident of Village- Chai Tola Pirpahar, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Munger.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr.Rajiv Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶10

5 20-09-2022

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶12

A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

Let the defect (s), if any, as pointed out by the office be removed within four weeks from the date of resumption of physical filing and physical removal of defect.

¶14

In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Munger Muffasil P.S. Case No. 219 of 2020, registered for the alleged offences under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

As per the prosecution case, the minor son of the informant went missing and the informant named the petitioner and other co-accused persons who might have kidnapped and killed her son.

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12801 of 2022(5) dt.20-09-2022 2/3

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely on the basis of suspicion. The informant has nowhere stated that she saw her son with the petitioner or any of the co-accused persons. There is no eye witness to the alleged occurrence. The occurrence is stated to have taken place on 09.06.2020, but the written report was submitted on 15.09.2020 and there is no explanation for this delay of more than three months. The petitioner has been falsely implicated as the wife of the petitioner was elected for the post of President in Mai Panchayat contesting against the informant. The petitioner is in custody since 06.08.2021 and is having clean antecedent. The charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioner.

¶18

Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail submitting that the witnesses in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the case diary have supported the prosecution case. However, learned APP concedes that these witnesses are not the eye witnesses and they have also showed their suspicion that the petitioner and other co-accused persons were involved.

¶19

Perused the records.

¶20

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made hereinabove and considering the lack of

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12801 of 2022(5) dt.20-09-2022 3/3

¶22

material to connect the petitioner with the crime as alleged and further considering the submission of charge sheet and the period of custody of the petitioner along with his clean antecedent, he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 219 of 2020, subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the following conditions :

¶23

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.

¶24

(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below.

¶25

(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned.

¶26

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶27

V.K.Pandey/-

¶28

U T

Gabbar Mandal v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gabbar Mandal 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

Gabbar Yadav @ Subodh Kumar @ Gabbara Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Satyajit Kumar @ Sujit Gore @ Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Vicky Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Santosh Paswan Vs The State of Bihar

Binay Kumar Babloo Vs State Of Bihar and Anr.

Nazrul @ Najirullah @ Samirullah @ Babla @ Ballu @ Bablu @ Sashiullah @ Sami Ahmad Vs The State of Bihar