Lakshman Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.2607 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -143 Year- 2016 Thana -MOHIUDDIN NAGAR DistrictSAMASTIPUR ======================================================

1. Lakshman Kumar, S/o Ram Punit Roy, Resident of Village-Kursaha, P.S.-Mohiuddinnagar, District-Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Thakur For the informant : Mr. Mahboob Ashraf, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Matloob Rab (APP-34) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA ORAL ORDER 17-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel representing the State.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mohiuddinnagar P.S Case No. 143 of 2016 registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegedly, one unknown called the son of the informant on his mobile No. 9709149443 and then the son of the informant went outside and thereafter he became traceless and his mobile was also switched of and in the morning his dead body was recovered adjacent to the gali. There was a sickle and his neck was half cut. During investigation, it transpires that on the mobile No. 8051828695 call was made and that was the last call and that mobile was in the name of the Raghupati Paswan. Further it transpires that mobile was misplaced and thereafter it transpires

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.2607 of 2017 (3) dt.17-03-2017 2/2 that the petitioner was using the said mobile No. 8051828695 and accordingly, the petitioner was apprehended and he confessed his guilt.

Submission is of false implication and that during investigation no cogent and legal material has come. The said mobile was never used by the petitioner, the said mobile is not in the name of the petitioner and there is no connecting material, and as such, the petitioner deserves sympathetic consideration. Learned A.P.P opposes the prayer of bail by submitting that the petitioner has confessed that he was using the said mobile vide para 69 of the case diary and further he confessed his guilt.

In the facts and circumstances stated above, considering that in the case diary there is sufficient material to show that the petitioner was using the said mobile by which the deceased was called and, as such, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, his such prayer stands rejected in connection with Mohiuddinnagar P.S Case No. 143 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Samastipur. (Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J.) Rajiv/- U T