Niraj Kumar @ Narayan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.47420 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -185 Year- 2016 Thana -CHANDAULI District- GAYA ====================================================== Niraj Kumar @ Narayan Kumar S/o Prem Prasad, Resident of Mohallanawaw colony, P.S. - Delha, District- Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhaskar Shankar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Abhay Kumar - 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 29-11-2016 Heard Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh for the petitioner and APP for the State.

The petitioner prays for grant of bail in Chandauti P.S. Case No. 185 of 2016 registered under sections 302, 120-B/34 IPC.

It is alleged that the petitioner had business terms with the deceased. Subsequently, he declined to have business with the brother of the deceased who had already invested a huge amount. On an assurance that the dues will be paid on 16.06.2016, the petitioner called the deceased. The informant also accompanied him where there was a heated exchange of words and the full amount was not paid. Threatening was held out to the deceased.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47420 of 2016 (3) dt.29-11-2016 2/3 On the date of occurrence, on an information by the police, he went to the place of occurrence and found that his brother was shot dead and was brought to the hospital.

The contention of the petitioner is that there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. The petitioner is in custody since 25.06.2016 having no criminal antecedents. The charge sheet has already been submitted.

Learned APP, on the other hand, referring to paragraph 74, 83 and 93 of the case diary, states that witnesses have stated about the quarrel taking place between the petitioner and the deceased. It is stated that the petitioner also subsequently made a confessional statement. Paragraph 46 of the case diary contains call details of the mobile phone between the petitioner and the deceased. It is submitted that there are materials which connect the petitioner with the crime.

On the contrary, Mr. Singh states that the statements of the witnesses in paragraph 83 was recorded one month after the alleged occurrence.

Be that as it may, considering the materials available on records, the Courts, for the present, is not inclined to extend the petitioner the privilege of bail. Prayer for bail is accordingly

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.47420 of 2016 (3) dt.29-11-2016 3/3 rejected.

The petitioner shall have liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial does not record adequate/sufficient progress/headway.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U T