Pawan Kumar @ Pawan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17077 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2018 Thana- RAMKRISHNANAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== PAWAN KUMAR @ PAWAN Son of Arjun Prasad Resident of Village - Satisthan Masaurhi, P.O.- Masaurhi, P.S.- Mausaurhi, Dist.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manish Chandra Gandhi For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. R.P.S.Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 26-08-2020 Heard Mr. Manish Chandra Gandhi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State through video conferencing.

Petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 842 of 2019 (arising out of Ramkrishna Nagar P.S. Case No. 186/2018) registered for the offences punishable under Sections 365/363 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner is named in the first information report with accusation that he took the informant's minor son from the house of the informant. In course of investigation,

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17077 of 2020(3) dt.26-08-2020 2/3 petitioner was arrested and confessed his guilt leading to recovery of dead body of the kidnapped boy from a pond. Submission on behalf of the petitioner is that, petitioner happens to be brother-in-law of the informant and the relation of the petitioner with his wife as well as informant was not cordial much prior to institution of the present case. Petitioner had given petition before the court below apprehending his false implication in criminal case. He, further, submits that police claimed to have seized the mobile phone of the petitioner that highlighted one message in which petitioner had used filthy language against the informant. He submits that the aforesaid fact, clearly, goes to show that the relation of petitioner with informant was not cordial and, furthermore, the aforesaid fact goes to show that the claim of the informant that petitioner had stayed at the house of the informant on the alleged date of occurrence was totally false and wrong.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, vehemently, opposed the bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions of the parties, I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail and, accordingly, his prayer for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17077 of 2020(3) dt.26-08-2020 3/3 bail stands rejected.

However, the trial court should expedite the trial of the petitioner.

(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J) Spd/- U T