Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29282 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2020 Thana- BIKRAM District- Patna ====================================================== SONU KUMAR SON OF DINDYAL RAY R/O VILLAGE- GIRWARI TOLA, P.S.- BIKRAM, DISTRICT- PATNA.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Mr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad, Advocates.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satyadeo Singh Yadav, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 07-12-2021 Heard Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satyadeo Singh Yadav, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Bikram PS Case No. 130/2020 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The allegation against the petitioner, as per First Information Report, is that he, allegedly, killed the husband of the informant and the occurrence was seen by a labourer of the deceased.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29282 of 2021(3) dt.07-12-2021 2/3 and the allegation, made in the FIR that there was previous land dispute between the deceased and the petitioner, is not supported by the any document or any case filed earlier by the side of the informant. Learned counsel next submits that the petitioner has been made accused merely on the basis of suspicion regarding planned murder.

Learned counsel for the State submits that in the First Information Report, it has categorically been stated that there was some dispute with regard to land between the parties and the petitioner used to threaten the husband of the informant with dire consequences and on the date of occurrence, the labourer, sleeping beside the deceased, had seen the petitioner fleeing away from the crime site. Learned counsel further submits that in para-11 of the case diary the statement of the eyewitness has been recorded.

Regard being had to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the material on record and the fact that the petitioner was seen fleeing away from the place of occurrence in the night by the eyewitness, who is a labourer, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is, hereby, rejected at this stage.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29282 of 2021(3) dt.07-12-2021 3/3 However, petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after one year from today, if the trial does not make any progress.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U T