Sanjay Soren @ Daman Sanjay Soren v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7275 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-319 Year-2021 Thana- RANIGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== Sanjay Soren @ Daman Sanjay Soren, Male, aged about 30 years, S/O Jagdish Soren, R/O Village- Takiya Bari, Ward No. 03, P.S. Raniganj, Dist. Araria.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Vijay Kishore Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 08-05-2024 This matter has been listed under the heading 'For Orders (on office notes)'.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Raniganj P.S. Case No. 319 of 2021 dated 27.10.2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the I.P.C.

4. As per the prosecution case, the informant's daughter was married to the petitioner and her daughter came at her maike 10-15 days ago. On the eve of 'Dashhara' festival, the informant's son-in-law came at the house of the informant and took his wife. A dispute was going on between the informant's

2/4 daughter and her son-in-law. At about 7-8 days ago, the informant tried to talk with her daughter on the mobile of her son-in-law but talk was made with her son-in-law but talk was not with her daughter by saying that she is not in the house and he has not given whereabouts her daughter. Thereafter, the informant sent her other sons-in-law Neeraj Marandi and Polus Murmur to her daughter's in-laws house then she came to know that neither her daughter nor her son-in-law was available in the house. The informant and others searched several times in the village, Mohalla, Chaur, Bahihar and their relatives about her daughter but she could not be found. It is further alleged that on 27.10.2021, at about 8.00 A.M., in the morning, she came to know from the local people of Baijnathpur village that a dead body was lying in the paddy field. The informant identified the dead body of her daughter. The informant believed that her sonin-law Sanjay Soren (petitioner) and three unknown accused persons threw the dead body of her daughter in the paddy field after killing her.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that as per the F.I.R., the deceased came to her maike on the eve of 'Dasahara' festival but the real fact is

3/4 that both the petitioner and the deceased came at the maike of the deceased and the petitioner returned alone as he used to live outside the State for his livelihood as it will be evident from the C.D.R. of the mobile of the petitioner. It is further submitted that in paragraph no. 89 of the case diary, the I.O. has found the mobile local of the petitioner bearing no. 8102565413 through the C.D.R. from 14.10.2021 to 17.10.2021 i.e., date of occurrence, is at 'Kalabalua' and on 18.10.2021 is at 'Uttar Pradesh', on 19.10.2021 is at 'Harayana' and 'Delhi' and on 20.10.2021 and from 22.10.2021 to 27.10.2021 is at 'Punjab'.

It is further submitted that a decomposed dead body of a lady in naked condition was found floating in a paddy field and the same was unable to identify but it was claimed by the informant that she identified the dead body of her daughter Laxmi Devi and the same was sent for chemical examination at J.L.N. Medical College, Bhagalpur and the dead body of lady was found aged about 20 years and cause of death was not ascertained. It is further submitted that there was rumors in the village that the deceased had eloped with the another person but the informant has falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case merely on the basis of suspicion. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition.

4/4 in custody in this case since 08.05.2023.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Araria in connection with Raniganj P.S. Case No. 319 of 2021 with further condition:- (i) The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bonds of the petitioner are liable to be cancelled.

8. The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) U.K./- U T