Partly allowed

Chandan Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC12 Sept 2022CR. MISC./18527/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment concerns bail applications by five petitioners in connection with an acid attack case (PS Case No. 367 of 2021). The High Court rejected bail for Chhotu Kumar due to specific allegations against him but granted bail to the remaining four petitioners on furnishing security, noting lack of material to connect them specifically to the crime.

What did the court decide?

Bail rejected for Chhotu Kumar. Bail granted to Ravi Pandey, Sajan Kumar, Chandan Kumar, and Ravi Kumar on furnishing Rs. 20,000 bonds with two sureties.

Chandan Kumar Vs the State of Bihar — Cheating and Forgery | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66874 of 2021

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-367 Year-2021 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda

¶3

====================================================== Ravi Pandey, Son of Sudhakar Pandey, Resident of Mohalla- Gayghat, P.S.Alamganj, District- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶8

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

¶9

with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 16377 of 2022

¶10

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-367 Year-2021 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda

¶11

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

¶12

Sajan Kumar, Son of Amar Saw, Resident of Vill- Sringar Hat, P.S- Sohsaray, Dist- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶17

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

¶18

with

¶19

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 18527 of 2022

¶20

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-367 Year-2021 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda

¶21

====================================================== Chandan Kumar, Son of Dilip Saw @ Dilip Prasad, Resident of Village - Patnacity Meena Bazar, P.s.- Alamganj, Distt.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶26

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

¶27

with

¶28

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 21036 of 2022

¶29

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-367 Year-2021 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda

¶30

====================================================== Ravi Kumar, Son of Tiwari Sao, Resident of Village - Gaighat, P.S. - Alamganj, Dist.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66874 of 2021(3) dt.12-09-2022 2/6

¶35

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶36

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

¶37

with

¶38

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 22924 of 2022

¶39

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-367 Year-2021 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda ====================================================== Chhotu Kumar, S/o Pramod Sah, Resident of at Mohalla - Gayaghat, P.S. - Alamganj, P.O.- Gulzarbagh, District - Patna, Pin- 800007.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶44

====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 66874 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Durgesh Nandan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 16377 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. R.P. Sharma, Advocate Mr.Mrityunjay Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 18527 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kameshwar Singh, Advocate Mr. Rajniti Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 21036 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Santosh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs.Rina Sinha, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 22924 of 2022) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Akshay Lal Pandit, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Aslam Ansari, APP ======================================================

¶45

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶46

3 12-09-2022

¶47

Since all the applications arise out of Laheri P.S. Case

¶48

No. 367 of 2021, as such, they have been taken up together and

¶49

are being disposed of by this common order.

¶50

Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

¶51

Let the defect (s), as pointed out by the office, be removed within a period of four weeks from the date of

¶52

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66874 of 2021(3) dt.12-09-2022 3/6

¶53

resumption of physical filing and physical removal of defect.

¶54

In the present case, the petitioners seek bail in connection with Laheri P.S. Case No. 367 of 2021 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 326 (A), 109 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶55

As per prosecution case, the informant gave a fardbeyan that the acid was thrown her face and she named one Lakhan Mahto as the person at whose instance the occurrence might have taken place. However, after investigation the police named the petitioners as the accused persons who were involved in the acid attack on the informant.

¶56

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are not named in the FIR and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners are not involved in any way with the alleged occurrence. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioner Ravi Pandey that he has no connection with other co-accused persons and is not related with coaccused Sajan Kumar with whom the victim girl is stated to have in love affair. Whatever has been done, it was done on behalf of Sajan Kumar and his cousin and this petitioner has got no role. He is in custody since 21.08.2021. It has further been submitted on behalf of other petitioners that the name of the petitioners have come up in the confessional statement of

¶57

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66874 of 2021(3) dt.12-09-2022 4/6

¶58

petitioner Chhotu Kumar and petitioner Sajan Kumar. It has further been submitted on behalf of petitioner Sajan Kumar that it is not probable that if this petitioner is in love affair with the victim girl, he would not like someone to throw acid on her face. However, submission has been made on behalf of the petitioners Chandan Kumar and Ravi Kumar that no specific allegation has been made in the confessional statement against them and they have no role in the alleged acid attack. Learned counsel for the petitioner Chhotu Kumar has submitted that the conduct of the victim girl is not as per legal norms that she should have gone to the police station first after receiving the said injury and not to the hospital. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that injuries on the victim girl are quite simple and similar injuries have been also found on petitioner Sajan Kumar and petitioner Chhotu Kumar. The petitioners are in custody since 21.08.2021 and charge-sheet has been submitted against them.

¶59

Learned APP opposes the prayer for bail submitting that the name of the petitioners came up during investigation for causing injury on the victim girl. Statement of eye-witness Jyoti Kumari under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded wherein she has named the petitioner Chhotu Kumar who threw

¶60

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66874 of 2021(3) dt.12-09-2022 5/6

¶61

the acid on the victim girl and all injuries are due to acid attack. Learned APP further submits that the acid attack took place and the petitioner Sajan Kumar ran away from the spot leaving behind the victim girl.

¶62

Perused the records.

¶63

Having regard to the submissions made hereinabove and considering the fact that there is specific allegation against the petitioner Chhotu Kumar that he threw the acid on the face of the victim girl and notwithstanding the nature of injuries which has been found on the victim girl, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner Chhotu Kumar .

¶64

Hence, the prayer for bail of petitioner Chhotu Kumar is rejected.

¶65

Further, considering the general nature of allegation against all other petitioners and lack of material on record to connect them with the crime of acid attack, the petitioners above named are directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsarif, in connection with Laheri P.S. Case No. 367 of 2021, subject to the conditions

¶66

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66874 of 2021(3) dt.12-09-2022 6/6

¶67

mentioned in Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also the following conditions :

¶68

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

¶69

the petitioners.

¶70

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

¶71

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

¶72

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)

¶73

balmukund/-

¶74

U T

Chandan Kumar v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajesh Tewari @ Rajesh Tiwari @ Naresh Tiwari Vs The State of Bihar

Ramesh Tewari @ Ramesh Tiwari Vs the State of Bihar

Sajan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Raju Mukhiya Vs the State of Bihar

Sanjay Roy Vs The State of Bihar