Md. Chand @ Deepak Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50537 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-13 Year-2021 Thana- MUZAFFARPUR TOWN DistrictMuzaffarpur ====================================================== MD. CHAND @ DEEPAK KUMAR S/o- Jahagir Alam R/o Village- Chhapra Manorath, P.S.- Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Anish Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Suman Kumari Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 28-02-2022 Heard Mr. Anish Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Muzuffarpur Town P.S. Case No. 13 of 2021 instituted for the offences under Sections 302 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 27 of the Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.01.2021 is a person with clean antecedent, charge-sheet has been submitted in the case and the informant alleges that on 07.01.2021, he along with his brother left on a motorcycle from their shop and went to Sikandarpur Shiv Transport and from there when they left, they were intercepted by three unknown criminal and one of the criminal
2/4 wearing white paint and black sweater sought his brother and poured chilly powder in the eyes of the informant and looted Rs. 50,000/- 60,000/- which the informant was carrying in a bag. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner after the occurrence himself went to the police station and confessed that he had participated in the crime along with Sonu, Rajkumar and Rajesh Mahato which is recorded at paragraph- 47 of the case diary. It is further submitted that the police thereafter, recorded the confessional statement of the petitioner and also got his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.. It is further submitted that the police based on its own investigation arrested Kishan Kumar @ Lalu and Rahul Sahni as it was claimed by the police that after the occurrence they were seen in a C.C.Tv.
Footage at a place near the place of occurrence and accordingly, Kishan Kumar @ Lalu and Rahul Sahni were arrested along with Rahul Kumar. It is further submitted that from Rahul Sahni, Kishun Kumar @ Lalu and Rahul Kumar some money was also recovered and one of the notes recovered from Rahul Sahni had initial of the deceased which connected him with the offence.
3/4 initial of the deceased, as it has come in paragraph -43 of the case diary, then it is the petitioner who himself went and surrendered in the police station and thereafter, confessed his participation in the occurrence along with Sonu, Rajkumar and Rajesh Mahto. As such, it seems that the police in order to save the real culprit made the petitioner a scape-goat along with other accused person whose name the petitioner is alleged to have confessed.
Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that from investigation, it appears that this petitioner suo motu appeared before the police and confessed by making an inculpatory statement alleging that he participated in the occurrence along with the named accused persons and Sonu shot the deceased whereas the police has its own theory based on CC Tv. Footage and the police during the course of investigation even recovered one notes from the possession of Kishun Kumar, Rahul Sahni and Rahul Kumar having initial of the deceased which prima facie connected them with the offence. Learned APP for the State thus, submits that it appears that an attempt is being made by the petitioner to derail the investigation by making a separate confession when police had already arrested the three accused
4/4 persons as aforesaid.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the present bail application. Permission is accorded with liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. Accordingly, the application is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Jagdish/- U T