Tunna Kumar Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24347 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-813 Year-2019 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== TUNNA KUMAR SAHANI Son of Amar Sahani Resident of Village - Dudhi, P.S. - Harsidhi, District - East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 11-11-2020 Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant, Mr. Rajesh Ranjan and Mr. Md. Ram Sumiran Rai, Additional Public Prosecutor for the state through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Turkauliya (Raghunathpur) PS Case No. 813/2019 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 365, 364A, 302, 201, 120B, 414 and 35 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation, as per First Information Report, is that the son of informant was traceless since 15.01.2019 and it has further been alleged that a call from the mobile of the son of the informant had come at 11:30 PM but the call could not be materialized.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner alleged and he has falsely been implicated in this case on the basis of confessional statement made by the petitioner as well as other co-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24347 of 2020(3) dt.11-11-2020 2/2 accused. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has allegedly prepared a ditch for disposal of the dead body of the son of the informant with the help of JCB on payment of Rs. 400/-.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant as well as learned counsel for the State submit that the petitioner was actively involved in the kidnapping and demanding ransom from the informant, inasmuch as on the basis of confessional statement made by the petitioner at para-23 of the case diary, the dead body of the son of the informant was recovered.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the parties and taking into consideration the material on record, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is, accordingly, rejected.

7. Petitioner, if so advised, may renew his prayer for bail after one year from today, if the trial does not show any progress. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U T