Allowed

Nirala Kumar Ray @ Santu Kumar Yadav @ Santu Kumar @ Sintu Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Apr 2024CR. APP (SJ)/567/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail appeal, setting aside the lower court's order rejecting bail. The court applied the principle of parity, noting that co-accused were granted bail despite the case relying on a co-accused's confession, which the appellant argued was inadmissible under the Evidence Act.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount.

Nirala Kumar Ray @ Santu Kumar Yadav @ Santu… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.567 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-377 Year-2022 Thana- BIBHUTIPUR District- Samastipur

¶3

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

¶4

Nirala Kumar Ray @ Santu Kumar Yadav @ Santu Kumar @ Sintu Kumar Yadav son of Ram Sagar Ray R/V- Belsandi Dih Ps- Bibhitipur DistSamastipur

¶5

... ... Appellant/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar

¶8

Chandan Kumar son of Balo Paswan R/V- Kodariya Ps- Bibhutipur DistSamastipur

¶9

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binay Krishna, Advocate ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 10-04-2024 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing

¶12

on behalf of the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State. The opposite party no. 2 is represented by learned Advocate Mr. Gautam.

¶13

The present appeal is preferred against the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (POA) Samastipur in connection with Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 377/2022 u/s 302/34 IPC, 27 Arms Act an 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST(POA) whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant was rejected.

¶14

Allegedly on 25.09.2022 at about 12:50 in the night when the brother of the informant went outside, in the meantime three unknown persons came on a motorcycle and made firing due to which he sustained a bullet injury in his abdomen. Subsequently the brother of the informant died in course of

¶15

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.567 of 2024(4) dt.10-04-2024 2/3

¶16

treatment.

¶17

It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that as per the narrations made in the FIR, the informant is not an eye witness to the alleged occurrence. Subsequently, during the course of investigation, the name of the appellant has sprung up on the confessional statement of Mr. Dinesh Kumar who has disclosed about the complicity of the appellant. Moreover, coaccused Dinesh Kumar on whose confession the name of the appellant has surfaced, he has been allowed bail by last Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 42965 of 2023 vide order dated 28.07.2023. It is further submitted that another co-accused namely Khus Khus Kumar @ Sanjeev Kumar whose name also sprung up in the confessional statement as also been allowed bail in Criminal Misc. No. 42965 of 2023, the copies of both the orders have been brought on record by Annexure 2 series. He next submits that the entire case on based upon the confessional statement of co-accused which is hit by section 25/26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Moreoever, the appellant having fair antecedent is in custody since 30.11.2023.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as well as informant vehemently opposed the prayer of the

¶19

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.567 of 2024(4) dt.10-04-2024 3/3

¶20

appellant and submitted that during the course of investigation, the tower location of the mobile of the appellant and other coaccused persons have been found at the place of occurrence and this fact had not been considered by the learned Co-ordinate Bench while granting the bail to other accused persons. He next submitted that there are ample materials collected during the course of investigation suggesting the complicity of the appellant.

¶21

Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that the case of the petitioner is based upon parity coupled with the fact that the entire case is based upon confessional statement of co-accused who has already been allowed bail by this Court, let the appellant, named above, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount. Accordingly the impugned order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA), Samastipur is hereby set aside.

¶22

The appeals stands allowed.

¶23

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶24

supratim/-

¶25

U T

Nirala Kumar Ray @ Santu Kumar Yadav @ Santu Kumar @ Sintu Kumar Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirala Kumar Ray @ Santu Kumar Yadav @ Santu Kumar @ Sintu Kumar Yadav 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

Shanti Devi Vs The Union of India

Md Jawed @ Guddu Vs The State of Bihar

Arjun Das Vs The Superintndent of Police/C.B.I

Ganesh Sao Vs The State of Bihar

Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Bharat Purbey Vs The State of Bihar