Narendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7839 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2024 Thana- KHAIRA District- Jamui ====================================================== Narendra Kumar Son of Late Sita Ram Sah Resident of Village - Naudiha, P.S.- Khaira, District - Jamui.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. N.K. Agarwal, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Dhananjaya Nath Tiwari, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Madhav Raj, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER 12-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Khaira P.S. Case No. 225 of 2024 dated 04.06.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 365, 201, 120B and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on the alleged date of occurrence, the son of the informant, namely, Satyadeo Arya aged about 20 years upon being called by somebody on his phone left the house at 8:30 pm in the evening and thereafter his phone was found switched off. The informant and his family members tried their best

2/4 to find out the whereabout of the son of the informant but remained unsuccessful.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that F.I.R. has been lodged against unknown persons but during the investigation two persons were arrested, namely, Priyanshu Kumar and Pritam Yadav, whose confession led to the recovery of the dead body of the deceased and other articles which were used in the said crime. The arrested persons also disclosed the name of the petitioner, who is uncle of Priyanshu Kumar, that he also participated actively in the said crime. It is submitted that when the petitioner came to know about the said case, he surrendered before the concerned court on 01.07.2024. It is submitted that during his confession, the petitioner also admitted his guilt but nothing has been recovered on the basis of his confession. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 01.07.2024, having no criminal antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

5. Learned A.P.P for the State opposes the prayer

3/4 for bail of the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that the deceased Satyadeo Arya was having affair with niece of the petitioner, namely, Sweta Kumari for which the petitioner and his nephew Priyanshu Kumar had warned Satyadeo Arya several times but he did not obey their desires, thereafter, both of them hatched a conspiracy and called the deceased in Orchard (Bahiyar) of village-Ballopur and assaulted him strangulated his neck. The petitioner has also confessed how he murdered the said Satyadeo Arya by using rope and buried his dead body in the Orchard. It is further submitted that it is a case of honour killing.

The brother of Sweta Kumari, Priyanshu and uncle of the said girl hatched a conspiracy and killed Satyadeo Arya and concealed the dead body of the deceased. Later, the dead body was recovered on the confession of Priyanshu Kumar. It is next submitted that two independent witnesses, namely, Rani Devi and Jaimanti Devi in their statement recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S.

4/4 eye witness of the occurrence.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.

8. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail is rejected.

9. The learned Trial Court is directed to take all endeavour to conclude the trial within one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order without granting any necessary adjournment.

10. This application stands dismissed.

(Khatim Reza, J) prabhat/- U T