Dinesh Paswan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9117 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-296 Year-2024 Thana- ATHMALGOLA District- Patna ====================================================== Dinesh Paswan Late Narad Paswan @ Sakal Paswan Resident of VillageMalahi Kali Sthan, Bhatgaon, P.S.- Barh, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sarandha Suman, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA ORAL ORDER 15-05-2025 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 Athmalgola P.S. Case No. 296 of 2024 dated 22.09.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 140(3), 103(1), 238 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that on the alleged date of occurrence husband of the informant (deceased) went to village-Dachhini Chak for hunting boar along with Sadhu Mahto and the petitioner but the husband of the informant did not return. When the informant enquired from the petitioner and Sadhu Mahto, they stated
2/4 that her husband was with them and he went for natural call but did not return. They searched him and thereafter they came to their house. The informant searched her husband but could not get any trace of him.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that the petitioner along with the co-accused Sadhu Mahto and the deceased went to villageDachhini Chak for hunting boar, thereafter, the petitioner and Sadhu Mahto returned their home but the husband of the informant (deceased) did not return. It is submitted that there is no material against the petitioner to connect with said occurrence. It is submitted that no incriminating articles have been recovered either from the possession of the petitioner or from his house. It is submitted that selfconfessional statement of the petitioner has been used against him, which is not acceptable in the eyes of law. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 27.09.2024, having two criminal cases against him and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.
5. Learned A.P.P for the State as well as learned
3/4 counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has confessed his guilt and on his confessional statement the dead body of the deceased was recovered. It is also submitted that in paragraph 38 of the case diary, C.D.R. of two mobile numbers i.e. of the petitioner and one Sujit Paswan is mentioned, which reveals that two times conversation had taken place between both of them at 21:57 PM on 20.09.2024 and at 05:31 AM on 21.09.2024. It is further submitted that the petitioner also accepted that he along with Sadhu Mahto killed Manik Mahto (husband of the informant) on the direction of Sujit Paswan.
6. Having considered the materials available in the case diary as well as confessional statement of the petitioner which led to recovery of the dead body of the deceased and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
7. Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioner for grant of bail is rejected.
8. The learned Trial Court is directed to take all endeavour to conclude the trial within nine months from the
4/4 date of receipt/production of a copy of this order without granting any necessary adjournment.
9. This application stands dismissed.
(Khatim Reza, J) prabhat/- U T