Pappu Kewat v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58660 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2021 Thana- CHANDI District- Nalanda ====================================================== Mantu Kewat @ Mantu Kevat(Male) aged about 40 years, son of Ram Sharan Kewat @ Ramasharya Kewat, Resident of village-Mosimpur, P.S.-Chandi, District- Nalanda.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 59187 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2021 Thana- CHANDI District- Nalanda ====================================================== Pappu Kewat, aged about 31 years, Gender-Male, son of Brind Kewat, resident of village-Mosimpur, P.S.-Chandi, District- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

(In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 58660 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Lovekush Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Choubey Jawahar, APP (In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 59187 of 2021) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 12-04-2022 Heard counsel for the petitioners, the State as well as the informant, Amrit Kumar.

The petitioners are in judicial custody in connection with Chandi P.S. Case No. 180 of 2021 under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

As per prosecution story, the informant Narsingh Yadav alleged that the petitioners along with accused Awadhesh

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58660 of 2021(2) dt.12-04-2022 2/3 Yadav took his son for lunch. However, his son did not return thereafter. Next day, he went for search and he came to know that the accused persons including the petitioners herein took away his son to the house of Baleshwar Choudhary where they had lunch and wine and some altercation also took place. Thereafter, it has been alleged that the accused persons threatened to kill him and later they killed his son which was found in a garden at Jagatpur.

It was under these circumstances, this FIR came to be instituted.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is the case of last seen, they were busy in the marriage of their daughter and as such there is no question of their taking part in the crime.

Learned counsel for the informant appears in this case and he submits that there are ample evidence against the petitioners that they were active partners in the alleged crime. He further submits that the trial is in advance stage and three witnesses have been examined and as such at this stage it would not be fit and proper to release the petitioners on bail. The submission of the learned counsel for the informant has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58660 of 2021(2) dt.12-04-2022 3/3 In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it would not be proper to release the petitioners on bail which is accordingly rejected. However, the Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial without any undue delay.

The bail application is rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T