This order grants regular bail to the petitioner in a murder case involving IPC Sections 302, 201, and 34, noting his extended custody and the fact that a co-accousess is already on bail, subject to conditions regarding court appearances.
Petitioner released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of the like amount.
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.18633 of 2020
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2019 Thana- MANJHAGARH District- Gopalganj
======================================================
SURESH BAITHA S/o Late Bhadai Baitha R/o village- Mishrwaliya, P.S.Majhagardh, District- Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Mishra, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER
4 03-03-2022
Heard Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Manjhagarh PS Case No. 56/2019 (S. Tr. No. 481/2019) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the IPC.
The allegation in a nutshell is that the daughter of the informant was married to the son of the petitioner, namely, Butan Baitha about 13 years ago and out of the wedlock, daughter of the informant gave birth to three children. It has also been alleged that the husband of the deceased used to reside in Maharashtra in order to earn his livelihood and in his absence, the deceased was being tortured by her father-in-law i.e., the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18633 of 2020(4) dt.03-03-2022 2/4
petitioner and mother-in-law, the co-accused. On 26.02.2019, the informant got an information on his mobile that his daughter and grand daughter aged about one year have died due to burn injuries and upon inquiry, he came to know that his daughter along with grand daughter have been set ablazed by the petitioner and co-accused i.e., mother-in-law of the deceased.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fact of the matter is that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with his son about 13 years ago and the deceased while cooking the meal got burn injury along with the daughter in her lap due to which they died subsequently. He further submits that the funeral of the deceased was performed on 24.02.2019 in which the informant and other family members also participated, however, at the behest of co-villagers and others the informant has lodged the present case two days after the death of the deceased on 26.02.2019. Learned counsel next submits that the petitioner is aged about 65 years and the coaccused mother-in-law, namely, Shanti Devi has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 87213/2019 (Annexure-2). Petitioner having no criminal antecedent is in custody for about three years, i.e., since 05.03.2019.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18633 of 2020(4) dt.03-03-2022 3/4
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, referring to the case diary, submits that the son of the petitioner has stated in his statement recorded under Section 161(3) of the CrPC that the petitioner and his mother used to torture the victim lady and he came to know from the villagers that the petitioner and co-accused have killed his wife and daughter.
In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the son of the petitioner whose statement has been recorded as witness is not an eyewitness and whatever he has stated, he has stated on the basis of hearsay evidence and in order to save himself from becoming the accused in the present FIR.
Regards being had to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the period of custody for about three years i.e., since 05.03.2019 and the fact that coaccused, namely, Shanti Devi has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, I am inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner will be well represented on each and every date in the trial and if he fails to do so on two consecutive dates, his bail bonds will be liable to be cancelled.
Accordingly, let the petitioner, SURESH BAITHA be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18633 of 2020(4) dt.03-03-2022 4/4
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned ADJ- 1st , Gopalganj in connection with Manjhagarh PS Case No. 56/2019 (S. Tr. No. 481/2019).
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
perwez
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of murder, culpable homicide, and abetment given he has been in custody for three years while a co-accused was granted bail
3 provisions across 3 enactments
SURESH BAITHA
The State of Bihar
ANIL KUMAR SINHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
