This order grants regular bail to the petitioner in a murder and conspiracy case. The court found the reliance solely on the co-accused's confession and suspicion after over a year of custody warranted release, subject to conditions.
Petitioner released on bail bonds of Rs. 20,000 with two sureties of like amount each.
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.48711 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-342 Year-2023 Thana- WARISLIGANJ District- Nawada
======================================================
Raghunath Singh @ Raghunandan Singh Son Of Shankar Singh @ Shankar Prasad Sharma Village- Bakma, P.S.- Bhadaur, Distt.- Patna, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Richa, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Madhura Nand Jha, APP ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER
2 11-09-2024
Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48711 of 2024(2) dt.11-09-2024 2/4
on the confessional statement of co-accused Rahul Kumar. On the alleged date of occurrence, the petitioner has been incarcerated in judicial custody in connection with Krishnapuri P.S. Case No. 422 of 2022 under Sections 302 and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. It is next contended that even during the course of investigation, it has not transpired that the petitioner has played any active participation in conspiring to kill the deceased, save and except the suspicion. Though, the impugned order suggest that co-accused Rahul Kumar was in touch with the petitioner on Whatsapp chat and call, but the same is unfounded and baseless for the simple reason that no mobile has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, as at that point of time, he was in Beur Jail. It is next contended that only on account of long list of criminal antecedent, his name has been implicated in this case, without there being any cogent evidence. Mere antecedent of a person cannot be a sole ground to keep him behind the bar unless there is other materials. It is lastly contended that co-accused Rahul Kumar, on whose confession the name of the petitioner surfaced, he has been allowed the privilege of regular bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 65373 of 2023 vide order dated 01.12.2023.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48711 of 2024(2) dt.11-09-2024 3/4
(i) The petitioner will cooperate in conclusion of the trial.
(ii) He will remain present on each and every date of trial till disposal of the case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48711 of 2024(2) dt.11-09-2024 4/4
(iii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial.
(iv) In the event of default of two consecutive dates without any cogent reason, his bail bonds will liable to be cancelled.
(v) The court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take immediate step for cancelling the bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds, in terms of the above-mentioned order, shall not be delayed for this purpose or in the name of verification.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves regular bail in a case involving death of a person by firing punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 120(B) read with Section 302 of IPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Raghunath Singh
The State of Bihar
Harish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
