Devchnandra Raj @ Devraj @ Deva @ Devraj Mahto @ Devendra Raj @ Devendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58434 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-266 Year-2019 Thana- RAJGIR District- Nalanda ====================================================== DEVCHNANDRA RAJ @ DEVRAJ @ DEVA @ DEVRAJ MAHTO @ DEVENDRA RAJ @ DEVENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE CHANDRA BHUSHAN MATHO @ BHUSHAN MAHTO Resident of village- Samsa Near Durga Asthan, Ward No- 12, P.S.- Naokothi, District- Begusarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajiv Prashant For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajit Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 17-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

As per allegation in the FIR, in morning of 17.7.2019, Chaukidar received information that one dead body was lying in a well near village Dangrapar Bharaithi Pool. Thereafter, the informant went there and found one unknown dead body lying in the well. He informed that P.S. through mobile and dead body was taken out from the well with the help of local people. The informant claimed that after committing murder at some where else and with a view to wipe out the evidence, the dead body had been thrown in the well. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is not named in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58434 of 2022(4) dt.17-04-2023 2/2 the FIR. His name transpired in this case on confessional statement of Shahrukh. Save and except this, no other consistent material has come against the petitioner to show his involvement in the present case. Similarly situated other accused person has already been enlarged on bail by another coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 3.6.2020 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 69313 of 2019. Petitioner was remanded in custody in Bakhri P.S. Case No. 332 of 2021 since 7.1.2022 and was remanded in the present case on 31.5.2022. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Rajgir, Bihar Sharif at Nalanda in connection with Rajgir P.S. Case No. 266 of 2019. (Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) sushma/- U