Tuntun Mandal @ Arbind Kumar Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.34832 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -306 Year- 2015 Thana -BHAGALPUR KOTWALI DistrictBHAGALPUR ======================================================

1. Tuntun Mandal @ Arbind Kumar Mandal S/o Late Ambika Prasad Mandal Resident of Village Baniyachak, P.S. Barahat, District Banka. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Praveen Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 01-12-2015 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.P.P as also the learned counsel for the Informant. The petitioner seeks bail in a case for the offences punishable under sections 364 A, 120B/34 and 302 of the I.P.C Allegedly, Kishori Prasad Yadav, the husband of the informant along with co-accused Ranjeet Kumar went to attend feast of Chhathi but did not return and her husband informed her through mobile that he is with Tuntun Mandal and others and thereafter mobile of her husband was switched off and on enquiry the relatives told that her husband was going in the night with Ranjeet Kumar, Tuntun Mandal, Uttam Singh and Manoj Sah and further Ranjeet Kumar told the informant to arrange Rs.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34832 of 2015 (4) dt.01-12-2015 2/3 10,00,000/- to release her husband and on mobile of her husband also ransom was demanded. During investigation Ranjeet Kumar and the petitioner gave their confessional statement. Submission is of false implication and that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner. The confessional statement made before the police has got no evidentiary value in the eye of law, even in the confessional statement the petitioner is not the assailant and his Car was being driven by co-accused Uttam Singh when the petitioner has refused. The petitioner is suffering in custody since 24.05.2015 having no criminal antecedent. Charge sheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence.

The learned A.P.P. duly assisted by the learned counsel for the informant opposes prayer for bail by submitting that the petitioner was also involved in kidnapping of husband of the informant and further he has provided Car. In the facts and circumstances as stated above, considering that charge sheet has already been submitted and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution evidence and against the petitioner there is no direct evidence and as such the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.34832 of 2015 (4) dt.01-12-2015 3/3 amount each to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Bhagalpur in Kotwali (Barari) P.S. Case No. 306 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