Prabhu Kamat v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58147 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-698 Year-2020 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== PRABHU KAMAT S/o Late Raj Kumar Kamat Resident of Supaul, Ward No. 14, P.S. and District- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Arun, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 27-04-2022 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
Let the defect(s) be removed within two weeks of the complete start of the physical Court in normal course. Petitioner, who is in custody since 27.01.2021, seeks regular bail in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 698 of 2020 registered for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution story in short is that one Pramod Yadav submitted a written report to the Incharge of Supaul Police Station alleging therein that to resolve dispute between the two sides a Panchayat was held at the door of Pradeep Yadav. It is alleged that after Panchayati on the request of Pradeep Yadav, the deceased slept at the Darwaja of Pradeep
2/5 Yadav and in the night he woke up hearing the screaming sound of his brother. He saw that the petitioner including the F.I.R. named accused persons and unknown miscreants were dragging his brother after stabbing with their sharp pointed weapons. It is further alleged that co-accused Sanu Singh and Prabhu Kamat tied the informant with Gamcha and confined him till 4.00 A.M. The informant is said to have escaped from the place of occurrence and came back to his village where he narrated the entire story to his villagers about the occurrence. The police took the dead body from there before the informant had returned to place of occurrence along with the villagers. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case.
It is submitted that there is general and omnibus allegation of stabbing against the petitioner. No specific overt act has been alleged against the petitioner. It is not the case of the informant that he had given the blow which became fatal for death of the deceased. He further submits that on mere suspicion, the present petitioner has been roped in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since 27.01.2021. Petitioner submits that informant is not the eye witness of the case, in fact, he was not present at the time of the occurrence.
3/5 antecedents and in all he is on bail.
Learned A.P.P., for the State has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case wherein from a bare reading of the First Information Report it appears that the petitioner alongwith co-accused Sanu Singh and Ganga Ram Yadav had placed the pistol on the informant and had threatened him not to shout, so far as the allegation of causing assault on the brother of the informant is concerned, it has been made against accused no. 4 to accused no. 16 including the petitioner alleging that they along with some unknown persons had forcibly pulled away the brother of the informant and had assaulted him. It has been submitted that fact that the informant had anyhow escaped and came back to his village and narrated the story to the covillagers creates doubt on the story of his being eye witness. The police had already taken away the dead body.
The FIR has not been lodged immediately. Nothing has come either in course of investigation or in further statement of the informant that as to what prevented him to not immediately lodge FIR instead of informing his villagers. It appears that petitioner above named has been implicated in this case on mere suspicion.
4/5 situated co-accused persons, namely, Alok Kumar @ Sonu Kumar @ Sanu Singh, Pradeep Yadav and Nirdosh Yadav have already been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.07.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 20967 of 2021, order dated 12.08.2021 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21123 of 2021 and order dated 20.04.2022 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3149 of 2022 respectively.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody of the petitioner, the Court below is directed to release the petitioner, above named, on bail upon furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Supaul in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 698 of 2020 subject to the following conditions: (i) Bailors should be local having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the Court concerned.
(ii) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court. (iii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses of the case, in that case, prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
5/5 (iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence, after his release on bail, the trial Court shall take steps to cancel his bail bond.
(Purnendu Singh, J) Niraj/- U T