Rintu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.24115 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -25 Year- 2015 Thana -BARHARA District- PURNIA ====================================================== Rintu Kumar son of Anjan Singh @ Ajay Kumar Singh R/o VillageNawada, P.S.- Chautham, District- Khagaria .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate Mr. Dr. Bidhu Ranjan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gajendra Prasad Yadav (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 02/ 17-07-2015 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State.

The petitioner is languishing in custody since 08.03.2015 in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the Chaukidar heard a rumor about lying of a dead body in the maize field at Sautarighat. Thereafter dead body was found buried in the maize field. Dead body could not be identified, hence, the FIR was

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24115 of 2015 (2) dt.17-07-2015 2/3 lodged against unknown. During investigation one Renu Patel made confession that she had some illicit relation with the victim Rakesh Raushan when the circumstances suggest that the victim was killed at the house of Renu. Some of the witnesses have suggested that the victim was seen prior to the occurrence with the petitioner and others whereas some of the witnesses have suggested that Ashok Mandal was driving one motorcycle and one bag being carried by the pillion rider Uma Shankar. One Bipin Singh suggested that Rintu Kumar and Rahul Kumar were trying to sell a mobile at low price but it was not purchased by him since he came to know that the mobile phone belongs to the victim. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that neither there is recovery of mobile phone from the petitioner nor the chain of circumstances are completed to suggest the complicity of the petitioner.

A statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Considering the fact that the accusation is based on circumstantial nature of evidence and the investigation being concluded, let the above named petitioner, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.24115 of 2015 (2) dt.17-07-2015 3/3 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea in connection with Barhara (Raghubanshnagr O.P.) P.S. Case No. 25 of 2015. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) DKS/- U T