Pappu Kumar Ram Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18514 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2024 Thana- JANTA BAZAR District- Saran

====================================================== Pappu Kumar Ram, Male, aged about 25 years, Son of Jai Kishor Ram, Resident of Village- Lahlad Pur, P.O.- Pandit Pur, P.S- Janta Bazar, DistrictSaran(Bihar)

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH

¶8

ORAL ORDER

¶9

3 09-07-2025

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶11

A.P.P. for the State.

¶12

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 47 of 2025, arising out of Janta Bazar P.S. Case No. 113 of 2024 dated 23.06.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 363 of the I.P.C. Later on Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. were also added.

¶13

As per the prosecution case, the informant’s son, namely, Pappu Ram, who worked as Manson (Raj Mistri) went to the house of Vishwanath Thakur at the village-Bhatwaliya from his motorcycle on the instruction of Uma Shankar on 22.06.2024 at 6.00 A.M. It is further alleged that at 12.00 noon, the informant tried to talk her son on Mobile No. 9798864708

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18514 of 2025(3) dt.09-07-2025 2/4

¶15

from Mobile No. 9661231317 but the mobile was switched off. At about 18.00 hours, the informant tried to search for her son but she could not succeed. On 23.06.2024 at 9.30A.M, she called on 112 Dial to the police and she went with her husband to search her for son and during course of which, she came to know that a motorcycle near Jalalpur Canal was lying and articles from dickey of the motorcycle were scattered. It is further alleged that the son of the informant, Pappu Ram was fallen in love with Rani Kumari who is the daughter of the informant’s Nanad, namely, Mina Devi. In the meantime, the marriage of Rani Kumari was fixed with one Sanjit Kumar Ram of the village-Banafar. The said Sanjit Kumar Ram took her son to somewhere which was disclosed by Vishwanath at villageMathwaliya about the said occurrence.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. His name has come in the present case on the basis of his self confessional statement made before the police wherein on coercion of police, he accepted his involvement in the present case which has got no evidentiary value in the eyes of law. No incriminating article has been

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18514 of 2025(3) dt.09-07-2025 3/4

¶18

recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that police after completion of investigation, submitted police report and on the basis of the said report, the learned court below took cognizance against the petitioner. The doctor has conducted the postmortem of the deceased and has opined the cause of death ‘opinion reserved till report of viscera from forensic laboratory available.’ The petitioner has one criminal antecedent in which he is on bail as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. The petitioner is in custody in this case since 25.09.2024.

¶19

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail petition of the petitioner and has further submitted that although the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but the petitioner in his confessional statement which is at page 32 of the case diary made before the police has accepted that he alongwith his friend Mangal Kumar committed murder of the deceased by strangulating his neck from his shirt.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as heinous nature of accusation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the same is rejected in connection with Sessions Trial No. 47 of 2025, arising out of Janata Bazar P.S. Case No. 113 of

¶21

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18514 of 2025(3) dt.09-07-2025 4/4

¶22

2024, pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-

¶23

2nd, Saran at Chapra.

¶24