Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9271/2025bail granted

Krishna Nandan Kumar @ Krishna Nandan Singh @ Krishnandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-05-26Justice Smt. Soni Shrivastava3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9271 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-275 Year-2024 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria ====================================================== Krishna Nandan Kumar @ Krishna Nandan Singh @ Krishnandan Kumar S/O Late Pratap Singh R/O Village- Bangalia, P.S- Mansi, District- Khagaria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Saket Kr. Singh, Advocate Ms. Sakshi Deep, Advocate Mr.Rakesh Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Kanhiya Kishor, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Brajesh Sahay, Advocate Ms. Approva Sinha, Advocate Ms. Harsita, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 26-05-2025

1. Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and Mr. Brajesh Sahay, learned counsel for the informant.

2. A prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the petitioner in connection with Mansi P.S. Case no.275 of 2024 registered under sections 103(1), 109, 352, 351 and 3(5) of the B.N.S, 2023.

3. The allegation in the F.I.R is that accused Arjun Yadav fired gun shot upon the informant and his son Ankit Kumar due to which informant's son sustained grievous injuries and he died in course of treatment.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits at the outset that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the petitioner has transpired during the course of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9271 of 2025(3) dt.26-05-2025 2/3 investigation in the confessional statement of co-accused Arjun Yadav which has been recorded in paragraph no. 37 of the case diary and a perusal of the same would go to show that he has admitted his guilt and in the last portion of the statement he has said that one another co-accused Dharmvir Yadav had called for a car from Krishna Nandan Kumar who is the present petitioner and thereafter co-accused Arjun Yadav left along with other accused persons from Supaul to Jogbani.

On the basis of such statement it has been submitted by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that taking the entire case to be true the only allegation against the petitioner is that he has facilitated the fleeing away of co-accused Arjun Yadav from Supaul to Jogbani by making available his car on hire. Except for the said confessional statement of co-accused Arjun Yadav made before police which has no evidentiary value, there is no other material against him to connect the petitioner in the alleged crime. It has further been submitted that co-accused Arjun Yadav is in custody. The petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2024 and undertakes to cooperate in the case/trial. The petitioner has one criminal antecedent in which he is on bail.

5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9271 of 2025(3) dt.26-05-2025 3/3 informant on the ground that the petitioner has committed an offence by harboring the main offender and helping him flee away from the course of justice.

6. Taking into consideration the above mentioned facts of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2024, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Mansi P.S. Case no.275 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria on the following conditions:- (I) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be the family member/close relative of the petitioner. (II) The petitioner shall remain physically present in the learned trial Court on each date and shall cooperate in the trial till framing of charge. In case the petitioner is absent on the two consecutive dates, the learned trial Court is at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner.

(Soni Shrivastava, J) Harsh/- U