Ranjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34427 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-566 Year-2020 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Ranjeet Kumar, Son Of Ram Babu Rai @ Ram Babu Yadav Resident Of Village - Navdiha, P.S.- Naubatpur, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Satyapal Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-01-2022 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Naubatpur P. S. Case No.566 of 2020, instituted for the offences under Section 302/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 19.01.2021, he is a person with clean antecedent and charge-sheet has been submitted in this case.

submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and the F.I.R. has been instituted by the father of the petitioner with regard to killing of the mother of the petitioner in which

2/4 suspicion has been raised against named accused persons. submits that petitioner came to be falsely implicated in the present case by the police in order to save the real culprits as no son would kill his own mother.

Learned A.P.P. after perusing the case diary submits that the police investigated the case fairly and came to a considered conclusion that it was the petitioner, who had killed his own mother as he was aversed to her selling the land. It is further submitted that the police suspected this petitioner as the door of the house was closed from inside, as such, it was difficult to enter the house from outside. Learned A.P.P. further submits that the petitioner in his confessional statement recorded at Para-27 of the case diary has accepted his guilt.

The learned counsel for the petitioner rebuts the submission made by the learned A.P.P. for the State and submits that the informant in the F.I.R. himself has stated that the door was opened, he saw the named accused persons fleeing from the place of occurrence. The learned counsel submits that even during the course of

3/4 investigation, it has come that all the family members have only said that the petitioner merely objected the selling of property by his mother, but none of them even remotely suggested that the petitioner might have committed the occurrence.

submits that it appears that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case for the reason that no scientific examination of the finger print of the petitioner was taken for confirming whether the ligature mark on the neck of the deceased matched with the finer print of the petitioner.

The learned A.P.P. fairly submits that during the course of investigation, it has not come whether any scientific examination was done in order to compare the finger print of the petitioner with the ligature mark on the neck of the deceased.

Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody, he is a person with clean antecedent, charge-sheet has been submitted in this case and is son of the deceased and none of the family members have raised any suspicion

4/4 and even remotely suggested that the petitioner might have committed the occurrence, the petitioner, above-named, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M., Danapur, Patna in connection with Naubatpur P. S. Case No.566 of 2020.

The application stands allowed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T