Malin Pramanik v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24279 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-261 Year-2023 Thana- POTHIYA District- Kishanganj ====================================================== Malin Pramanik son of Sumrit Pramanik @ Samarit Pramanik Village- Khunti Jhargaon Patagoda Bazar ps- Islampur Dist- Uttar Dinajpur W.B, A/P- Halda Ps- Pothia Dist- Kishanganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ram Prawesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Amitesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 11-07-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Pothia P.S. Case No. 261 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The informant is widow of the deceased (Raju Matho). It has been mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner had taken Rs. 30,000/- on credit from the deceased. At the pretext of payment of dues, the petitioner called the deceased to his house and when the deceased went there, the petitioner assaulted with pointed weapon. On hearing hue and cry, the informant went there and found the dead body of her husband. The petitioner absconded from his house. In the next morning, she lodged an

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24279 of 2024(3) dt.11-07-2024 2/2 FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He has further submitted that the FIR was not lodged on the same day, rather it was lodged in the next morning, which makes the prosecution case suspicious.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in paragraph no. 23 of the case diary, the petitioner has confessed his guilt stating that he killed the deceased by inflicting blows with trident. He has further submitted that the postmortem report shows that the injuries caused by pointed weapon was found on the dead body.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances and also considering that on disclosure of the petitioner, the police recovered the trident, wherefrom he had murdered the deceased, I do not think it to be a fit case for bail, which is hereby rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T