Arvind Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 45660 of 2016 Arising out of P.S. Case No. -160 Year- 2015 Thana - MARHAURA District- SARAN ============================================== Arvind Kumar, Son of Rajendra Singh, Resident of Village-Kone Kothiya Madhopur (Fatehpur), P.S.-Dildarganj, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner.

Versus

The State of Bihar.

.... .... Opposite Party.

============================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv. : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Informant : Mr. Udai Shankar Singh, Adv. For the State : Sri Aditya Narayan Singh 1, APP.

============================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER

02. 25.10.2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, informant and the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation, certain articles loaded on three trucks were intercepted by the police at entry point at Danapur, and they paid Rs. 4,000/- each as fine then the truck reached its destination and on second morning two persons were found dead. It is alleged in the FIR that the owner of the articles as well

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45660 of 2016 (2) dt.25-10-2016 as staff had conspired to kill both the drivers since dispute arose between the parties for payment of Rs. 8,000/-. Learned counsel for the informant has stated that the petitioner had threatened the deceased but the same is not apparent from the First Information Report and he is not able to substantiate that the same has come during the course of investigation.

The Sessions Judge in his order has stated that in paragraphs 53, 54 and 55 of the case diary, statement of the witnesses have been recorded who have raised the suspicion that the petitioner along with his partner might have killed the deceased.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the basis of suspicion a person cannot be put behind the bars. It is further contended that one of the owner, Subodh Kumar has already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Annexure-3 whereas learned counsel for the informants has submitted that in case of another co-accused person, case diary was called and perused by Co-ordinate Bench, however, the informant is not able to point out that there is any material against the petitioner except suspicion that he might have killed the truck drivers coupled with the fact that one of the partners

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.45660 of 2016 (2) dt.25-10-2016 who has been granted bail, is on identical footing. It is also contended that the petitioner in custody since 25.07.2016. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, namely, Arvind Kumar is directed to be released on bail after completion of six months period of custody on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000 (Ten Thousand Rupees) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Saran at Chapra in connection with Marhawrah Case No. 160 of 2015. Vikash/- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) U T