Allowed

Gopi Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC2 Nov 2022CR. MISC./31069/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 120B (IPC) and later 302 IPC, the High Court allowed the petitioner's release on bail after considering the submitted charge sheet, lack of independent eye-witness against the petitioner, and the nature of allegations.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each.

Gopi 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.31069 of 2022

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2022 Thana- SAKURABAD District- Jehanabad

¶3

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

¶4

GOPI KUMAR S/o Sri Raj Kumar Sharma R/o village- Ghejan, P.S.Shakurabad, District- Jehanabad

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

=================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : : :	=================================== Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Adv. Mr.Madhumay Madhup, Adv. Mr. Nishikant, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : ===================	Mr.A.G ===================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 02-11-2022

¶12

Let the defect(s), as pointed out by the office, be

¶13

removed within a period of four weeks from today.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶15

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Shakurabad P.S. Case No. 26 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code thereafter Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was also added in the F.I.R.

¶16

As per prosecution case, accusation against the petitioner is that he ordered to kill the informant’s son namely Sanoj Kumar, thereafter co-accused Ankit Kumar took out pistol from his waist and shot at informant’s son due to which

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31069 of 2022(2) dt.02-11-2022 2/3

¶18

informant’s son fell down.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 02.03.2022. Petitioner bears two criminal antecedents. Charge sheet has already been submitted in the case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner does not have any balughat and has no such business of selling sand. The allegations against the petitioner of ordering the co-accused to kill the son of the informant for the reason of not taking sand from ghat has no legs to stand upon. There is no independent eye witness against the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he is only an order giver.

¶20

The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as period of custody, charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence, argument advanced on behalf of the parties and also taking into consideration the material available on record, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31069 of 2022(2) dt.02-11-2022 3/3

¶23

with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1^st Class, Jehanabad in connection with Shakurabad P.S. Case No. 26 of 2022, subject to following conditions:-

¶24

(i) One of the bailors shall be either father or mother or sister or brother or wife or the person who has sworn the affidavit in bail application.

¶25

(ii) Petitioner will co-operate in trial and will remain present on all dates and absence for two consecutive dates without appropriate permission would be a ground for cancellation of bail by the learned Trial court itself.

¶26

(iii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶27

(iv) Petitioner shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned trial court without appropriate permission of the court concerned.

¶28

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶29

amitkr/-

¶30

U T

Gopi Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandan Kumar Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Raja Vikash Prasad Singh @ Vikash Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Sudhir Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pintu Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Vijay Rai Vs the State of Bihar

Suresh Yadav Vs the State of Bihar