Dharmendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.10335 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -628 Year- 2015 Thana -SASARAM NAGAR District- SASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================

1. Dharmendra Kumar Son of Late Tilakdhari Singh Resident of village - Rakiyan Bigha, PS - Amjhor, District - Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bajarangi Lal For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar No.1(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 19-05-2016 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned A.P.P for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offence punishable under section 302/34 of the I.P.C Brij Bhushan Dubey @ Pintu Dubey, the uncle of the informant Rahul Kumar Dubey was killed and the informant named three partners of brick kiln as suspects. During investigation one Dharmendra Kumar who was arrested in Tilauthu P.S. Case No. 770 of 2015 under the Arms Act confessing his guilt regarding this crime stated the name of the informant Rahul Kumar Dubey, the petitioner and others. Thereafter the informant Rahul Kumar Dubey also confessed his

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10335 of 2016 (5) dt.19-05-2016 2/3 guilt stating the name of the petitioner also and on the basis of the confessional statement of Rahul Kumar Dubey the Rinch which was used in the crime was recovered.

Submission is of false implication and that there is no legal and tangible material against the petitioner, the petitioner has been made victim of the village politics, he has got no concern with Rahul Kumar Dubey, the alleged confessional statement of co-accused made before the police have got no evidentiary value in the eye of law and as such the petitioner who is suffering in custody since 31.07.2015 deserves sympathetic consideration, to which the learned A.P.P. opposes by submitting that the petitioner is the head and he has made plan for killing the deceased after taking money and advance of Rs. 32,000/- was taken by Tiger and rest Rs. 18,000/- was to be paid and as such the petitioner does not deserve bail.

In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering that charge sheet has already been submitted against the petitioner and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence and as such he is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.10335 of 2016 (5) dt.19-05-2016 3/3 No. 17 of 2016 arising out of Sasaram (Tilothu) P.S. Case No. 628 of 2015, subject to the conditions that one of the bailors must be a near relative and another having sufficient immovable property within the territorial jurisdiction of the court concerned and the petitioner shall remain present on each and every date during trial and the default on two consecutive dates on his part without any reason shall disentitle the petitioner from privilege of bail. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) Abhay/- U T