Allowed

Santosh Kumar Shukla v. the State of Bihar

Patna HC18 Jan 2024CR. MISC./1036/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner, who is in custody for alleged murder, after the framing of charge. Bail was contingent on furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000 with sureties and complying with strict conditions regarding monthly police station attendance and refraining from tampering with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Granted regular bail after framing of charge upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties of like amount subject to specific conditions regarding attendance and witness tampering.

Santosh Kumar Shukla Vs the State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1036 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2018 Thana- DUMARIAGHAT District- East

¶3

Champaran

¶4

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

¶5

SANTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA SON OF LATE RAM LAXMAN SHUKLA @ LATE RAM LAXUMAN SHUKLA R/O MAMRAKHA, P.S.- MALAHI, DIST.- EAST CHAMPARAN

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Krishna Kant Singh, Adv For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Madhuri Lata, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 18-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶12

A.P.P. for the State.

¶13

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Dumariyaghat P.S. Case No. 31 of 2018 registered on 19.02.2018 lodged under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the I.P.C.

¶14

As per the prosecution case, F.I.R. has been lodged against four named accused persons including the petitioner. It has been stated in the F.I.R., that three named accused persons other than petitioner reached at the house of the petitioner and told the informant's son to come with them at 10:00 P.M. When informant's son has not returned then villager's along with the informant started searching him. When they reached at the house of the petitioner, they told that there is no need to search

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1036 of 2024(2) dt.18-01-2024 2/3

¶16

as his son is safe. When the informant reached at the place then found that informant's son has died.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner submits that name of the petitioner has been figured in this case only by the virtue of suspicion.

¶18

Counsel further submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He further submits that from the content of the F.I.R. it is very much clear that only three persons other than petitioner has called the informant's son with them. petitioner is in custody since 21.11.2023 having clean antecedent. Charge-sheet has already been filed in this case.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer

¶20

for bail.

¶21

In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, let the petitioner above named, be granted bail after framing of charge and on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Dumariyaghat P.S. Case No. 31 of 2018 subject to the following conditions as well as the conditions laid down under Section 437 (3) of the Cr.P.C.

¶22

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1036 of 2024(2) dt.18-01-2024 3/3

¶23

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

¶24

(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 reason will entail cancellation of his bail bonds by the Trial Court itself;

¶25

(iii) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned police station every month for one year to mark attendance;

¶26

(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 cancellation of the bail bonds; and

¶27

(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds.

¶28

(Dr. Anshuman, J)

¶29

Sunnykr/-

¶30

Santosh Kumar Shukla v. the State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar Shukla 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

Ram Binay Tiwary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Masoom Ansari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Sahay Singh and Ors. Vs Pabitri Devi and Ors.

Rajesh Yadav Vs the State of Bihar

Sonu Giri @ Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Giri Vs the State of Bihar

Munna Kumar Verma Vs The State of Bihar