Daya Sagar Ram @ Dhuran Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16272 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-185 Year-2016 Thana- DHANSOI District- Buxar ====================================================== Daya Sagar Ram @ Dhuran Ram son of Kanhaiya Ram Village- Rajapur PsRajpur Dist- Buxar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Anand Kumar Ojha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 12-07-2024
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
2. The present petition is at the behest of the petitioner for grant of regular bail in connection with Dhansoi P.S. Case No.185 of 2016 (S. Tr. No.273 of 2023), registered for the offence punishable under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code but charge has been framed u/s 364(A)/34, 302/34, 201/34, 120(B) of IPC.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the son of the informant had gone to his maternal house on 26.12.2016 and was returning back on 27.12.2016, however, he did not reach his village rather a ransom call was received by his family member and later his skeleton was found in Kaimur Hills.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16272 of 2024(3) dt.12-07-2024 2/3
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent, he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he is languishing in custody since 04.08.2023. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the petitioner is an accused in two other cases but he is on bail in both the said cases. It is next contended that a bare perusal of the impugned order dated 19.12.2023, would show that the name of the petitioner has transpired on account of confessional statement made by the other accused persons, namely, Mantu Pandey and one Om Prakash Singh, however, the fact remains that the said two accused persons have already been granted bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court, vide orders dated 11.09.2017 and 03.05.2017, passed in Cr.Misc. No.42057 of 2017 and Cr.Misc. No.9614 of 2017, respectively, hence it is submitted that the petitioner be also granted the privilege of regular bail.
5. Per contra, the learned APP for the State has though vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16272 of 2024(3) dt.12-07-2024 3/3 materials available on record as also considering the fact that the main accused persons, namely, Mantu Pandey and Om Prakash Singh have already been granted the privilege of bail, on whose confessional statement, the name of the petitioner has transpired in the present case, apart from the fact that the FIR has been registered against unknown persons, I deem it fit and proper to admit the petitioner to the privilege of regular bail.
7. Accordingly, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Buxar in S.Tr. No.273 of 2023, arising out of Dhansoi P.S. Case No.185 of 2016.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) Saurav/- U T