Arun Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.15099 of 2016 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -290 Year- 2015 Thana -ARA NAWADA District- BHOJPUR ====================================================== Arun Singh Son of Kamleshwar Singh at present R/o Muhalla- New Manpur (near Shiv Mandir) Danapur, P.S.- Danapur, Dist- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajani Ranjan Pd. Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Kishor Singh (App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 19-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Ara Nawada P.S. CaseNo.290 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 365 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, Ghanshyam Kumar was taken away in Indica vehicle of white calour and since then he is traceless. During investigation a dead body was recovered for which Dhangai P.S. Case No.49 of 2015 was registered and that dead body was of Ghanshyam Kumar. Thereafter Deepak Thakur stated the name of the petitioner that he and unknown killed and threw the dead body. The petitioner was apprehended and he confessed his guilt.

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.15099 of 2016 (3) dt.19-05-2016 2/2 Submission is of false implication and that besides suspicion there is nothing against the petitioner and there is no eye witness, no one has seen the petitioner in the company of the deceased, there is no legal and tangible material against the petitioner and without fault he is suffering in custody since 22.01.2016. Confessional statement has been recorded by the police forcibly and nothing has been recovered from possession of the petitioner.

The learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer and submits that the call details obtained also suggests the involvement of the petitioner.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, and considering the materials collected during investigation against the petitioner at present I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, it is ,accordingly, rejected.

However, let the trial be expedited and concluded preferably within nine months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J) AnilKrSinha/- U T