Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46059 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2024 Thana- NAWADA District- Nawada ====================================================== Rahul Kumar Son Of Satyendra Paswan Village- Ghostama, P.S.- Kadirganj, Distt.- Nawada ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Ranjay Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, A.P.P ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-10-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Nawada Town P.S. Case No. 119 of 2024 dated 19.01.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 326, 302 and 120B read with Section 34 of the I.P.C.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 19.01.2024 at about 3.30 P.M., when the informant was sitting at his fruit shop, his son Shaan Kumar informed him on mobile phone that his mother was cut, but he did not say anything clear. Then he went to his wife's shop named as 'Diamond Beauty Parlour' where he saw a huge crowd gathered there, on entering inside, he saw that his wife Shweta Kumari was fully drenched in blood and

2/4 was in seriously injured condition. He took her to Sadar Hospital, Nawada, where she died in the course of her treatment. It is further alleged that some unknown miscreants killed her by inflicting 30-35 blows of sharp-edged weapon but she did not have any inimical terms with anybody. It is further alleged that two days ago, his wife had said to him that on 17.01.2024 at about 3.30 P.M., two unknown boys had come to her Beauty Parlour to get their eyebrows set up, but his wife replied that it was a lady Beauty Parlour and the customers present there also told the boys to go to Gents Parlour. It is further alleged that the aforesaid two persons returned from there at about 5.30 P.M., by saying that there is no Gents Parlour. The deceased protested and asked them to get out of her shop.

His wife had also informed the informant that the said two boys were seen moving in the mohalla three days ago, and when she was sitting at her house, they came there and asked about a room for taking on rent, but she told them that there is no room to be given on rent. It is further alleged that these two unknown miscreants may have killed his wife Shweta Kumari.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of

3/4 the petitioner has sprung up in the confessional statement of the co-accused. There is no specific allegation of committing murder of the deceased against the petitioner. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody in this case since 30.01.2024.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner and submitted that the co-accused, Rinki Devi had given a contract to the petitioner and the co-accused persons, namely, Karan Kumar, Prince Kumar, Avinash Kumar and Rahul Kumar for committing murder of the deceased and they have been paid Rs. 2,00,000/- for the same. The petitioner was arrested on the confessional statement of the co-accused persons and in paragraph no. 117 of the case diary, it has been mentioned that the co-accused person, Rinki Devi had transferred total Rs. 1,89,500/- on different dates through the account of Simran Kumari into the account of Satendra Paswan who is the father of the petitioner, Rahul Kumar. The bail of other co-accused person has already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.09.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44958/2024.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the heinous allegation against the

4/4 petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the same is rejected in connection with Nawada Town P.S. Case No. 119 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada.

7. The application stands rejected.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T