Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48625 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-276 Year-2023 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar Son of Sri Bhagwan Pandey R/O Vill.- Kishunpur, P.S.- Bihta, Dist.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 21-10-2024 Heard Mr. Anshul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Kumar No.2, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Sessions Trial No. 779 of 2023 arising out of Bihta P.S. Case No. 276 of 2023 for the offence under Sections 363, 365 of the Indian Penal Code and latter on added Sections 364(A) and 302 of the I.P.C. lodged on 16.03.2023 by the informant, Raj Kishore.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant' son went out for playing but failed to return and his mobile also was switched off. Despite search, he could not be found, thereafter, the kidnapping report.
4. Subsequently, the petitioner was picked-up and on the basis of his confessional statement, it was found that his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48625 of 2024(5) dt.21-10-2024 2/2 mobile SIM was present at the place of occurrence. He was also seen in CCTV footage taking the informant's child (deceased) with him and later, the burnt dead body was recovered behind the Champaran Meat House.
5. Though learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon this Court regarding the authenticity of the video footage, learned APP has pointed out to the several documents/statements/incriminating articles relating to the said occurrence to show active participation of this petitioner.
6. The trial has already commenced. A minor boy was kidnapped and killed only because the petitioner wanted more money and in the process, the life of the family has been ruined. In that background, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Amandeep/- U T