Sudershan Bind v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31485 of 2020 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2020 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Sudershan Bind, aged about 60 years, Male, Son of Ram Janam Bind, Resident of Village Tarawn, P.S.- Belaon, District - Kaimur at Bhabua. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Tribhuwan Narayan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. B.N. Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 02-02-2021 Heard Dr. Amrendra Kumar duly assisted by Mr. Tribhuwan Narayan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. B.N. Pandey, the learned Additional P.P. as well as Mr. Pravin Kumar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

A supplementary affidavit is filed. Let the same be kept on record.

The petitioner seeks bail in Bhagwanpur (Belaon) P.S. Case No.89 of 2020, registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

In sum and substance, the allegation is that the father and uncle of the informant, namely, Banshi Ram and Lalan Prasad went to keep watch on their vegetable field but they were found killed inside the hut by causing injury with sharp edged weapon. The informant suspected the hand of the petitioner and four others on account of enmity.

Dr. Amrendra Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that save and except the suspicion, there is no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31485 of 2020(5) dt.02-02-2021 2/2 tangible material against the petitioner. It is further submitted that earlier the son of the petitioner has sworn affidavit stating that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent but when the fact about the criminal antecedent of the petitioner was disclosed by the learned counsel for the informant, the wife of the petitioner filed supplementary affidavit stating that the petitioner has got four criminal cases including the case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Out of four cases, in two cases the petitioner has been acquitted.

Taking into consideration the facts that the petitioner at the first instance concealed the fact that he got criminal antecedents, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after four months if the trial is not concluded within four months as it is submitted that the trial has also begun.

(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) S.KUMAR/- U T