Rajeev Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52736 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2021 Thana- SINGHIYA District- Samastipur ====================================================== Rajeev Kumar Singh Son of Nand Kumar Singh @ Nawal Singh Resident of Village - Lagama, P.S. - Singhia, District - Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 10-10-2022 Let the defect(s), if any, be removed within two weeks from today.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Singhiya P.S. Case No. 12 of 2021 lodged under Sections 302 and 34 of the I.P.C.

As per the prosecution case, the informant has disclosed that on the previous night i.e. on 26.01.2021 at about 11:30 her dewar slept in his room. In the morning of 08:30 i.e. on 27.01.2021, when she visited in his room then observed that his neck was cut down and blood were lying everywhere. The F.I.R. has been filed against unknown accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52736 of 2021(6) dt.10-10-2022 2/2 that his antecedent is clean and he is in custody since 31.01.2021. He also submits that his name has come in this case by the confessional statement of the co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that other co-accused has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.05.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 54988 of 2021. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that it is true that the name of the petitioner has come on the confessional statement of other co-accused but he submits that on the confessional statement of the petitioner, the jacket and the weapon used in the crime both are recovered from the possession of the petitioner. In the present facts and circumstances of this case and the submissions made above, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and therefore, his bail petition is hereby rejected but liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner that he may renew his prayer for bail one year after framing of charge. With this observation, the bail application stands rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) prakashmani/- U T