Vishal Singh @ Vishal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35276 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-35 Year-2021 Thana- MANER District- Patna ====================================================== Vishal Singh @ Vishal Kumar Son of Sri Binod Singh Resident of Rampur Diyara, P.S. Maner, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shambhu Sharan Singh For the Informant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 25-01-2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State through video conferencing. The petitioner seeks bail in Maner P.S. Case No. 35 of 2021, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 364/120(b)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
As per the prosecution case, on 11.01.2021 at 4.30 pm this petitioner along with co-accused Satyadeo Singh came at the house of informant and told that one Harendra Singh was calling her son namely, Sonu Kumar @ Alok Kumar at his Poultry Farm. Thereafter, son of informant went along with them, but he did not return till late night. On the next morning, informant called on mobile of co-accused Satyadeo Singh, but he did not respond and switched off his mobile phone.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35276 of 2021(3) dt.25-01-2022 2/2 Informant suspects that petitioner along with co-accused committed murder of her son and disappeared his dead body. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case merely on suspicion. There is no motive for petitioner for committing such offence at best it is a case of last seen. Petitioner is in custody since 22.02.2021 having no criminal antecedent.
Counsel for informant however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this petitioner and coaccused were last seen with the victim and there is no explanation given by them regarding whereabout of the victim who is still traceless.
Considering the facts aforesaid and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner abovenamed on bail. Accordingly, the same is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) vinita/- U T