Mohammaddin Mian @ Mohemmeddin Miyan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.55672 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -200 Year- 2016 Thana -KUCHAIKOTE District- GOPALGANJ ====================================================== Mohammaddin Mian @ Mohemmeddin Miyan Son of Atar Mian @ Atar Miyan, resident of Village:- Baluan Sagar, P.S.- Bishwambharpur, DistrictGopalganj, Bihar. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar.
.... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Indrajeet Bhushan For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Shailendra Kumar -2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 31-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kuchaikote P.S. Case No.200of 2016 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 302, 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, Jitan Yadav @ Jitendra Kumar Yadav, the son of the informant, went with Bhola Miyan and thereafter, he did not return back and on search the dead body was found hanging on Gullar tree situated in the filed of Munna Chaubey and it is alleged that Bhola Miyan in conspiracy with other unknown persons committed the murder of the son of the informant and in conspiracy hanged the dead body on the tree. During investigation the name of the petitioner transpires in the confessional statement of Bhola Miya and further the witness Dhrub Chaurasia also stated
regarding the hand of the petitioner in the crime vide paragraph 89 of the case diary.
Submission is of false implication and that the petitioner is not named in the first information report, there is no evidence in the case diary against the petitioner, the name of the petitioner has come in the confessional statement of Bhola Miyan which has got no evidentiary value in the eye of law, the statement of Dhrub Chaurasia is not like an eye witness rather hearsay, chargesheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with prosecution evidence. The petitioner is suffering in custody since 14.10.2016 and as such he deserves sympathetic consideration.
Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the name of the petitioner has come during investigation and he was involved in the killing of the deceased. Dhurb Chaurasia stated regarding hands of the petitioner also and as such he does not deserve sympathetic consideration.
In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that there is no eye witness of the occurrence, in the confessional statement of Bhola Miyan name of the petitioner transpired and further chargesheet has already been submitted and there is no
chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence, the petitioner above named is directed to be released on bail on execution of bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in connection with Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 200 of 2016, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail.
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) avin/- U T