Nitish Kumar @ Pallo v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36372 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-814 Year-2021 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Nitish Kumar @ Pallo Son Of Khattar Mandal R/O- Madhuban, P.S.- Madhepura (Bharrahi O.P.), District- Madhepura. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 22-09-2022 Heard Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State. Let the defect(s) be removed within four weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Madhepura (Bharrahi O.P.) P.S. Case No.814 of 2021 instituted under Sections 302,120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the FIR, Sunita Devi, the informant, mother of the deceased Rahul Kumar, alleged that the accused persons including the petitioner herein took her son and thereafter he did not return. Later she came to know through the villagers that her son's dead body has been thrown on the side of the road. She rushed to the place and saw her son's dead body. Accordingly, the present FIR was lodged.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36372 of 2022(2) dt.22-09-2022 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is a last scene case inasmuch as no one has seen the occurrence and as such he is entitled to privilege of bail. Learned APP on the other hand took this Court's attention to the observation made by the learned Sessions Judge in which it has been observed that after the implication of the petitioner, he was arrested and on his confession, the alleged 'Dabia' which used for killing has subsequently been recovered/seized from his house.

Taking into account the aforesaid fact that has come in the order of the learned Sessions Judge not refuted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court for the present is not inclined to grant him privilege of bail, which is accordingly rejected.

Before parting, this Court would like to put on record its word of appreciation for Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner for the assistance rendered in the matter.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Prakash Narayan /- U T