Allowed

Sanjeev Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Aug 2022CR. MISC./15669/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to petitioner charged with murder, conspiracy and eating out possession of firearm. Court imposed conditions including family surety, monthly police reporting and strict attendance in court for six months. Bail becomes infructuous if antecedents are found.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail on bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties subject to conditions of family surety, monthly police attendance and strict court appearance.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15669 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-313 Year-2021 Thana- KASIMBAZAR District- Munger

¶3

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

¶4

Sanjeev Kumar, Son of Dinesh Shah Resident of - Shyampur, P.S.- Kotwali, District - Munger.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER

¶10

3 17-08-2022

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶12

APP for the State.

¶13

Let the defect(s) be removed within four weeks of the

¶14

complete start of the physical Court in normal course.

¶15

The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No.313 of 2021 instituted under Sections 302, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 Arms Act.

¶16

In this case, case diary was called for on 11.07.2022.

¶17

As the prosecution story, the deceased Deepika Sharma was married to Ravi Kumar and it is alleged that due to firearm injury, her left hand was not working properly and as such she has not liked by her in-laws. Further, she was an eyewitness to the murder of her mother by relatives of in-laws and they were pressurizing her not to stand as a witness to the

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15669 of 2022(3) dt.17-08-2022 2/4

¶19

said case which she had repeatedly refused. Accordingly, it has been alleged that the in-laws planned and executed the murder of the informant’s daughter.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is stranger to the family and his name has has come up in the confessional statement of accused Gautam Kumar who after his arrest narrated the story that he along with the petitioner herein as also co-accused Patlu @ Amardeep were assigned the job of killing the lady Deepika Sharma. Further as per the case diary, Gautam Kumar has confessed that on the fateful morning, while he remained outside the home of the deceased this petitioner and Patlu @ Amardeep went inside whereafter Patlu @ Amardeep opened fire killing Deepika Sharma.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even going by the said confessional statement of accused Gautam Kumar, the role of firing has been assigned to co-accused Patlu @ Amardeep and not upon this petitioner. He submits that he is in custody since 16.11.2021 (as stated in para-14 of the bail application) and has no criminal antecedent.

¶22

Taking into account the narration in the para-36 of the case diary that accused Gautam Kumar has assigned the role of firing on Patlu @ Amardeep, the petitioner is in custody since

¶23

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15669 of 2022(3) dt.17-08-2022 3/4

¶24

16.11.2021, has no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet stands submitted, this Court is inclined to grant him privilege of bail. However, if it is found that he do have criminal antecedent this bail shall become infructuous.

¶25

Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No.313 of 2021 to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Munger, subject to following conditions:

¶26

(i) one of the bailor should be the family member of the petitioner, who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

¶27

(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date before the Trial court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reasons will entail cancellation of his bail by the Trial court itself;

¶28

(iii) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned police station every month for next six months to mark his presence;

¶29

(iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidence, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for

¶30

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15669 of 2022(3) dt.17-08-2022 4/4

¶31

cancellation of his bail bonds;

¶32

(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any

¶33

criminal offence again failing which the State shall be at liberty to steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.

¶34

With the aforesaid observations, the bail application is

¶35

allowed.

¶36

(Rajiv Roy, J)

¶37

Prakash Narayan /- U T

Sanjeev Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjeev 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

Om Singh @ Rishi Raj Vs The State of Bihar

Bablu Dharkar Vs the State of Bihar

Sanjay Singh @ Sanjay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Anagad Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Rajeev Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar

Saddam Hussain @ Saddam Hussain Shah Vs The State of Bihar