Patna High CourtCR. MISC./3093/2020dismissed

Pankaj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2020-03-20Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3093 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2019 Thana- DUMRA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== PANKAJ KUMAR Son of Late Mishri Singh Resident of Village - Kajimore, P.S. - Digha, District - Patna ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Anuj Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai, Addl Public Prosecutor For the Informant : Mr. Ashhar Mustafa, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-03-2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

Petitioner is accused in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

It is alleged that on 6.3.2019 at 12.39 AM the petitioner and other accused persons, being members of Quick Response Team (QRT) and the police party of Chakia police station came to his house, they woke up and took away his son Gufran Alam for enquiry. Informant further came to know that one Molazim Ansari, his co-villager, had also been taken away by the officer in charge and other police officials of Dumra Police Station. Finally, when he went to Dumra Police Station at 4 PM, he came to know that both of them have been killed by the police party.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3093 of 2020(3) dt.20-03-2020 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner was not the member of the QRT, rather he was the member of the technical cell of the police party and his duty was only to trace out the tower location of mobile phones of suspected miscreants and to provide the same to the police party and thus he is no way concerned with the interrogation/investigation of the case which is apparent from the records of the case. Petitioner is in custody since 30.8.2019. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the petitioner and other police officials are in fact responsible for custodial death of the aforesaid two persons. As the petitioner was the member of the QRT and there is allegation of custodial death of two persons against the petitioner and other co-accused persons, his prayer for bail is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shashi U T