Krishna Deo Ram @ Krishna Deo Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.7761 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -186 Year- 2014 Thana -NAWADA District- NAWADA ====================================================== Krishna Deo Ram @ Krishna Deo Singh, S/o Late Ramprit Ram, resident of Village/Mohalla- Gariba, P.S.- Rajauli, District- Nawada .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Deo Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Aditya Nr. Singh No.1(APP) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 20-05-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the informant and the learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Nawada Town P.S. Case No.186 of 2014 for allegedly having committed the offences under Sections 364A, 120B/34 and 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., his name has surfaced only on the confessional statement of one Narendra Singh, his own son Pankaj Kumar @ Pappu and one accused Mokthar Ansari. It is submitted that such a confessional statement made before the police has no evidentiary value and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be made accused in the present case. However,

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.7761 of 2015 (3) dt.20-05-2015 2/2 learned counsel for the informant has stated that it is not just a confessional statement which can be given a goby because on the basis of such statements made by the three accused persons, the dead body of the deceased Vipin Kumar was recovered and further also on the basis of their statements, blood-stained clothes and other materials were also recovered. Learned counsel for the State has also referred to several paragraphs of the case diary, which clearly indicate and point out to the complicity of this petitioner in connection with the present occurrence.

In view of the fact that there are much cogent materials in the case diary, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The criminal miscellaneous application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U T