Tinku Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57091 of 2015 (4) dt.18-02-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.57091 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -149 Year- 2015 Thana -DHANARUA District- PATNA ====================================================== Tinku Kumar, son of Satyendra Prasad, resident of village- Gosaimath, Mathiyapar, P.S. Hilsa, District- Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar No.1(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 18-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 149 of 2015 registered under Sections 302, 201, 120(B) and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending in the court of J.M. Ist Class, Masaurhi, Patna. On the basis of the written report of informant, Sanichar Ram, present case was instituted against two unknown persons regarding the murder of Sonu Kumar, son of the informant, who was driving the Tempo of his brother-in-law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. but in course of investigation police recorded his confessional statement showing his

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.57091 of 2015 (4) dt.18-02-2016 involvement in the present case. It is further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 08.06.2015.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that in course of investigation, mobile phone of the deceased was recovered from possession of the petitioner, which would appear from paragraph 46 of the case diary, and later on, the petitioner has also confessed his guilt about committing the murder of the deceased.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J) Bhardwaj/- U T