Haridwar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40067 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2019 Thana- HISUWA District- Nawada ====================================================== 1.
Haridwar Singh (M) aged about 62 years, Son of Late Kailash Singh 2.
Pankaj Kumar (M) aged about 39 years, Son of Haridwar Singh 3.
Paro Devi (F) aged about 37 years, Wife of Pankaj Kumar 4.
Rupbati Devi (F) aged about 60 years, Wife of Haridwar Singh All are residents of Village- Oro, Police Station- Hisua, District- Nawada. 5.
Pammi Devi @ Pammi Kumari (F) aged about 32 years, Daughter of Hridwar Singh, Wife of Santosh Kumar, Resident of Village- Oro, Police Station- Hisua, District- Nawada. present resident of Khauna, Gangapur, Police Station-Hulasganj District- Jehanabad. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners :
Mr. Raj Kumar, Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Ashraf Ansari, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER 26-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest for the offences alleged under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered in connection with Hisua P.S. Case No. 119 of 2019.
3. It is submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated and the accusations against them are general and omnibus in nature. It is submitted that petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are living separately in the district of Solan, Himachal Pradesh and they were not present at the time of occurrence. Petitioner no. 5 is the married Nanad who has been living separately from the deceased. The petitioners claim clean antecedents.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40067 of 2019(3) dt.26-08-2019 2/3
4. Learned APP assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposes the petition. Learned APP submits that the witnesses, namely, Santosh Kumar and Raushan Kumar in paragraphs 6 and 11 of the case diary have supported the prosecution case. It is further submitted on the basis of statements made in paragraph 18 of the case diary that Chowkidar has stated that upon arrival of the police, half-cremated body of the deceased was abandoned by the accused persons who fled from the spot. There is material in the case diary to support the accusation of torture by the accused persons. There is nothing in the case diary to suggest that petitioner nos. 2 and 3 were living in Himachal Pradesh. Post mortem of the body of the deceased could not be performed in Sadar Hospital, Nawada and the dead body was sent to PMCH for the purpose.
5. Having regard to the nature of accusations and gravity of offence alleged, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to petitioner nos 1 to 4, namely, Haridwar Singh, Pankaj Kumar, Paro Devi and Rupbati Devi. Their anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed.
6. As regards petitioner no. 5, namely, Pammi Devi @ Pammi Kumari, considering the submission of petitioner no. 5 that she is the married Nanad of the deceased, who has been living separately in the district of Jehanabad, in the event of her arrest or surrender before the court below within six weeks from the date of communication of this order, let her be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawada in connection with Hisua P.S. Case No. 119 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and with further conditions -- (i) That one of the bailors shall be a close relative of petitioner no. 5.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40067 of 2019(3) dt.26-08-2019 3/3 (ii) That petitioner no. 5 shall not indulge in any similar offence till conclusion of the trial.
(iii) That petitioner no. 5 shall be well represented in court on each and every date during trial except as and when directed by the learned Court below to be physically present, and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, her bail bond shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned Court concerned. (iv) That petitioner no. 5 shall cooperate with the investigation, if not already concluded, and make herself available as and when so required and in case of failure, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(Vikash Jain, J) BT/- U T