Amit Kumar @ Jhullar Kumar @ Jhullar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39405 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2020 Thana- DULHIN BAZAR District- Patna ====================================================== AMIT KUMAR @ JHULLAR KUMAR @ JHULLAR SHARMA Son of Bisheshwar Sharma R/o- Vill - Bhimnichak, P.S. - Dulhin Bazar, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Samrendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms. Renu Kumari, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-01-2022 Heard the parties through video conferencing. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Let the defect(s) be removed within two weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. Petitioner, who is in custody since 12.01.2021, seeks regular bail in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 211 of 2020 registered for offences punishable under Sections 302/34/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that one Ramashish Verma, who happened to be the informant of this case, lodged the instand case, alleging therein that his brother Sanjay Verma
2/4 (Since deceased) went for morning walk along with Vijendra Kumar, but soon after that he heard that he was shot dead by unknown bike borne four accused persons. After getting the information, the informant went at the place of occurrence with other co-villagers and found that his brother was lying injured, then they took him to Paras Hospital, but during treatment his brother succumbed to the fire-arm injury.
Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and not named in the F.I.R. There is not any eye witness of this case except Vijendra Kumar, who has not taken the name of the petitioner during the investigation. He further submits that the name of the petitioner was taken by one co-accused Munim Sharma who has already been released on bail vide order dated 06.01.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 30518 of 2021.
Learned A.P.P., however, opposes the prayer for bail. He submits that it appears from impugned order that in course of investigation, the name of the petitioner surfaced in the restatement of the informant and in the statement of other witnesses, who specifically took the name of the petitioner regarding his involvement in the alleged occurrence, which is mentioned in paragraph nos. 9, 10, 19, 26, 27 and 32 of the case
3/4 diary.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as there is no allegation of tampering the evidence or influencing the witnesses and there is no likelihood of trial being concluded in near future, the petitioner above named is directed to be enlarged on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate- Ist class, Danapur, Patna in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 211 of 2020 with a condition that he will tender his attendance before the S.H.O. of local Police Station everyday at 9 a.m. and the S.H.O. will submit monthly report of attendance to the S.P., Patna and on any single default of attendance, the bail bond of the petitioner shall be cancelled. The other conditions are as follows:
(i) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned.
(ii) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court. (iii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty
4/4 to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner. (Purnendu Singh, J) Niraj/- U T