Sanjeet Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51746 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2021 Thana- WARISLIGANJ District- Nawada ====================================================== SANJEET KUMAR SINGH Son of Parmanand Singh Resident of Village - Mafi Ward No. 3, P.S. - Warsaliganj, District - Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Md. Najmul Hodda, Advocate For the Informant :
Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 28-03-2022 Heard Shri Yogesh Chandra Verma, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Amresh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State.
Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within a period of four weeks after complete start of the physical Court. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 302, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 02.03.2021, charge-sheet has been submitted and has antecedent of two cases.
The informant alleges that his father was a night guard in S.N. Sinha, College and the father of the informant had given Rs.4,00,000/- by way of advance to Shishupal Singh and Bhola
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51746 of 2021(5) dt.28-03-2022 2/3 Singh for purchase of land but they denied to purchase the same, hence, requested to Shishupal Singh and Bhola Singh to return the advance money. It is further alleged that Shishupal Singh and Bhola Singh called the father of the informant at S.N. Sinha, College on 22.02.2021 for returning the advance money and since then the father of the informant was missing.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was instituted against unknown and even suspicion was not raised against Shishupal Singh and Bhola Singh to whom the father of the informant had given Rs.4,00,000/- by way of advance for purchase of land. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that name of this petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused Bhola Singh in police custody which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that from perusal of the confessional statement of Bhola Singh, it would manifest that Bhola Singh, Shishupal Singh along with this petitioner and one more person had taken the deceased to the place of occurrence where they killed the father of the informant. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that it absolutely does not stand to reason that this petitioner at least had no motive to kill the father of the informant.
Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner but are not able to meet the submissions of the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51746 of 2021(5) dt.28-03-2022 3/3 Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the FIR was against unknown and name of this petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused Bhola Singh. Learned counsel for the informant submits that the charges have been framed and the trial is yet to commence. Considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody, charge-sheet has been submitted and name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Warsaliganj P.S. Case No. 66 of 2021, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall appear on every date fixed in the trial and if the petitioner does not appear on any of the date fixed in the trial without any plausible explanation, the learned Court below will be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T