Kashinath Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22257 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-154 Year-2023 Thana- GANGABRIDGE District- Vaishali ====================================================== Kashinath Rai Son Of Kinta Rai R/O-Saraipur, P.S.-GANGABRIDGE, Distt.- VAISHALI ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Sunidhi Vimal, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 26-06-2024 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Ganga Bridge P.S. Case No. 154 of 2023, lodged on 19.07.2023 under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently added sections 364, 302, 201, 120(B), 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, FIR has been lodged against unknown accused persons. From the FIR, it transpires to this Court that initially the case of kidnapping was filed, but subsequently, dead body was recovered and the case was converted into section 302 of the IPC along with other sections.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22257 of 2024(4) dt.26-06-2024 2/3 that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel also submits that save and except the confessional statement, there is absolutely nothing against the present petitioner. Counsel further submits that the criminal antecedent of the petitioner is clean and he is in custody since 28.07.2023.

5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence even on the basis of confessional statement which has been taken by the police. Counsel submits that initially the dead body was found for which a separate case has been lodged and subsequently, the confessional statement has been taken by the police from the present petitioner. Counsel also submits that from the post-mortem report, the sign of strangulation is there. Counsel submits that other co-accused persons have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court which is annexed as Annexure-P/2, Annexure-P/3 and Annexure-P/4 respectively.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner

7. Upon specific query of the Court from the counsel for petitioner that whether charge has been framed in this case or not, counsel submits that he is not aware that whether charge has been framed or not.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22257 of 2024(4) dt.26-06-2024 3/3

8. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, let the petitioner above named be granted bail, but only after framing of charge, if not framed on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali, Hajipur in connection with Ganga Bridge P.S. Case No. 154 of 2023, subject to the conditions as laid down U/s 437(3) Cr.P.C. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U T