Md. Ritik @ Chunilal @ Faiz v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2959 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-414 Year-2022 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== MD. RITIK @ CHUNILAL @ FAIZ Son of Kaimuddin @ Mahfooz Resident of Mohalla- Raza Bazar, Samanpura, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad For the Informant/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar For the State :

Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 05-05-2023 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Shailendra kumar, the learned APP for the State and also heard the learned counsel for the Informant.

In this case, the petitioners are seeking regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 1383 of 2022, arising out of Shastri Nagar P.S. Case No. 414 of 2022, registered for the offenses punishable under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. As per allegation, co-accused Md. Raju, Md. Shahid and Md. Faiz called the brother of the informant. They went towards jungle and smoked smack. Thereafter, the accused persons committed his murder by inflicting knife blows. Co-accused Bunty and Sunny were also amongst them, who stabbed the brother of the informant.

The learned counsel for the informant has submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR and has falsely been implicated in this case. Except the confessional statement of coaccused, there is nothing against the petitioner. He has submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2959 of 2023(3) dt.05-05-2023 2/2 further that on similar footing, co-accused Md. Arif Quraishi @ Rishu @ Arif Qureshi has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 5294 of 2023.

On the other hand, the learned APP and the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that Md. Shahid and Md. Raju have furnished the vivid descriptions of the entire occurrence, in which they have stated that they, along with the petitioner and other accused persons, named in their confessional statement, assaulted the deceased by inflicting knife blow on his person and committed his murder since he was quarreling with co-accused Md. Raju and Md. Faiz. They have submitted further that the confessional statement led to recovery of knife.

It appears that complicity of this petitioner figured in confessional statement of co-accused and that confessional statement led to recovery of knife, whereby the murder was committed.

Considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant him bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/Sudha U T