Dabloo Tiwary @ Jitender Kumar Tiwary @ Jitender Tiwary v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42548 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2025 Thana- BARUN District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Pradeep kumar S/O Jalendra Ram Resident of village- Bhikharidih ,P.SNokha , District - Rohtas,Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 48461 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2025 Thana- BARUN District- Aurangabad ====================================================== DABLOO TIWARY @ JITENDER KUMAR TIWARY @ JITENDER TIWARY S/O JOKHAN TIWARY PREMANENT R/O VILLBABHANGAWANA, PS-DARIGAON, DIST-ROHTAS ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 42548 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Kamlendra Prasad Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, Adv.
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 48461 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ambuj Nayan Chaubey For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Uday Pratap Singh For the Informant :
Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 01-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Informant as well as learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Barun P.S. Case No. 20
2/5 of 2025 dated 13.01.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant alleged that his father had left for his dispensary. When the informant was informed that he was shot, accordingly, he reached the place of occurrence and found the dead body of his father. It is further alleged that the petitioners and the co-accused persons were demanding Rs.1 crore or two and half Bighas of land as extortion and they have also captured his land pertaining area 3 acres. It is further alleged that the co-accused, Dhananjay Singh provided the location of his father, leading to the occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The name of the petitioners has sprung up in this case on mere suspicion and the informant is not an eyewitnesses to the alleged occurrence. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. There is land dispute between the parties. The petitioners have no concern with the alleged occurrence. The petitioner Pradeep Kumar has one criminal antecedent and the petitioner Dabloo Tiwari has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioners Pradeep Kumar and Dabloo Tiwari are in custody since 17.02.2025 and 17.05.2025 respectively.
3/5
5. Learned counsel for the Informant as well as learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the bail petition of the petitioners and submitted that the petitioners in their selfconfessional statement have accepted their guilt and also accepted their involvement in the conspiracy in commission of the present occurrence. As per the confessional statement of the co-accused, Anshu Kumar, he has stated that Sanjay Dubey, who lives in a rented house at Jamuhar and deals in buying and selling of vehicles, due to this Sanjay Dubey was already acquainted with him about 8 months ago, Sanjay Dubey assigned him the task of killing a man, on which, he along with his gang members Ashish, Pradeep Kumar (petitioner) and Rahul met Shailesh Tiwary through Sanjay Dubey and Dablu Tiwari (petitioner) and demanded Rs.
5 lakhs to kill Anil Singh for which they agreed and advance of Rs. 2 lakhs was given which they divided amongst themselves in the amount of Rs. 50,000/- each. Shailesh Tiwari identified Anil Kumar Singh by his photograph and told him the registration number of his motorcycle while going there he would inform about some work to be done through Sanjay Dubey. After which, Anshu Kumar absconded as a case was filed, due to which work was not done.
4/5 accused Shailesh Tiwari gave him a black Apache and white FZ motorcycle and a weapon for the work and said that he would give Rs. 51,000/- separately to the person who shoots him on the head. On 13.01.2025 at about 9 AM Sanjay Dubey called from his mobile no. 8863985677 to the mobile no. 9065004242 of Anshu Kumar and informed that Anil Singh was leaving his home for Obra on his motorcycle Registration No.
BR24AB2930 on receiving this information they reached near the Coal Depot, after that they saw Anil Singh coming then they followed him from behind, Anshu Kumar, Rahul and Ashish reached on an FZ motorcycle and Anshu Kumar took out a pistol and shot him from behind upon which he fell from the motorcycle, again Anshu Kumar took out a pistol and shot him from behind after which he fell from the motorcycle and the jacket of Anil Singh caught fire, the FZ motorcycle was parked near the house of Anshu Kumar and Apache motorcycle was returned to the coaccused near Bhudwa Shiv Mandir. Dablu Tiwari (petitioner) gave Rs. 1,95,000/- to Pradeep (petitioner) by calling him to his village Vabhangama, after the completion of work.
It is further stated that as per para 83 of the case diary, police also recovered two motorcycles, two country made Kattas, six live cartridges and three mobile phones from the possession of the petitioner Pradeep Kumar and other co-accused persons.
5/5 court vide order dated 20.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc No. 25647 of 2025. The petitioner Pradeep himself confessed that he received Rs. 40,000/- through the petitioner Dabloo Tiwari and he also received Rs. 20500/- through Sanjay Dube in his bank account.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the heinous nature of offence against the petitioners, this court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners and the same is rejected in connection with Barun P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025, pending in the Court of learned C.J.M., Aurangabad.
7. The application stands rejected.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) guddukr/- U T