Navin Tanti @ Navin Kumar @ Lulha @ Kishan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24668 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-258 Year-2024 Thana- MUNGER MUFFASIL District- Munger ====================================================== Navin Tanti @ Navin Kumar @ Lulha @ Kishan Son of Late Prem Prakash Tanti @ Prem Prakash @ Prem Tanti Resident of Village- Mubarakchak Naya Tola, Bank, P.O.- Bank, P.S.- Muffasil, District- Munger ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Madhukar Anand, Advocate Mr. Shubham Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Amritanshu Udbhava, Advocate For the State :
Mr.Md. Matloob Rab, APP For the Informant : Mr. Deep Anshuman, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 30-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. In the present case, the petitioner seeks bail in connection with Muffasil (Munger) P.S. Case No. 258 of 2024 registered for the alleged offences under Sections 103, 61(2) and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, three co-accused persons shot dead the son of the informant and his driver in conspiracy with other co-accused persons. The name of the petitioner transpired during investigation for also being involved in the conspirancy.
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The name of the petitioner transpired during investigation on the basis of secret information. The informant who is stated to be eye witness also did not name the petitioner. Further, the name of the petitioner transpired in confessional statement of co-accused Fantush Yadav @ Sonu, who has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 87703 of 2024. Learned counsel further submits that there is delay of 36 hours in lodging the FIR. The case has been lodged after deliberation and concoction. During investigation police also collected CCTV footage and even in that footage, there is no recording of the petitioner. In fact, no substantive material has come up during investigation against the petitioner. The petitioner is having antecedent of two cases and he is on bail in both the cases. The petitioner is in custody since 18.12.2024 and charge sheet has been submitted.
5. Learned APP as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the petitioner did recce and was actively involved. However, learned counsel for the informant has failed
3/4 to mention any substantive material against the petitioner so as to deny bail especially in the light of the fact that the coaccused, who named this petitioner, has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the lack of substantive material against the petitioner and further considering the submission of charge sheet and period of custody of the petitioner, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Munger/concerned Court in connection with Muffasil (Munger) P.S. Case No. 258 of 2024, subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 480(3) of B.N.S.S. and also the following conditions: (i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below.
(iii) In case of absence on three consecutive dates or in violation of the
4/4 terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J) DKS/- U T