Ajay Kumar @ Ajai Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.8248 of 2018 ======================================================

1. Ajay Kumar @ Ajai Kumar, Son of Lal Mohan Singh, Resident of Village Torna, P.S. Sheosagar, District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sada Nand Roy, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Meena Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

The petitioner is in custody in connection with Sasaram (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.1359 of 2017, a case under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, offences under Sections 364/302/201/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act were added.

Marriage of the petitioner was settled with the daughter of co-accused Rabindra. The daughter of the co-accused was first murdered said to be in a case of triangular love. Thereafter, allegation is that son of the informant Chandan Kumar was kidnapped, who was in love with Priti and his murder was also committed. There is no eyewitness of the occurrence nor there any substantial evidence in the case. However, confessional statement of some of the co-accused is there before the police and

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.8248 of 2018 (2) dt.12-02-2018 P2/ on the basis of the confessional statement skeleton of the deceased was said to have been recovered.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner nor there is any reason that the petitioner would commit murder of the son of the informant because the petitioner was to marry with the daughter of co-accused who already died prior to the present case.

Learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for bail. However, could not bring on the record any direct evidence against the petitioner.

Considering the aforesaid fact, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court-below where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid case, with condition that the petitioner shall fully cooperate with the investigation/trial of the case, failing which the court below shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner. (Birendra Kumar, J) Mkr./- U T