Bharat Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Miscellaneous No.54006 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -186 Year- 2015 Thana -MOTIHARI MUFASIL DistrictEASTCHAMPARAN(MOTIHARI) ====================================================== BHARAT RAI SON OF KISHORE RAI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - BARHARWA, P.O. AND P.S. - MUFFASIL, DISTRICT - EAST CHAMPARAN.

.... .... PETITIONER/S

VERSUS

THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... OPPOSITE PARTY/S ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pravin Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL ORDER 30-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the informant.

Deceased Golu was taken away by the petitioner, Santosh Kumar along with two unknown persons on 21.06.2015 at about 06:00 PM and since thereafter, he became traceless. On the following day at about 12:00 noon while the prosecution party were in search of Golu, were informed by the police regarding his murder. Postmortem report does suggest that deceased was done to death by means of sharp cutting weapon.

Contention on behalf of petitioner is that considering the inculpatory extra judicial confessional statement of co-accused Santosh as well as he himself recorded under para-47 as well as 55 of the case diary, it is evident that petitioner is not an assailant and on account thereof, petitioner

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54006 of 2015 (3) dt.30-01-2016 should be granted bail.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the informant opposes the same. Perused the case diary. From perusal of the same, it is evident that those inculpatory extra judicial confessional statements apart from being inadmissible in the eye of law, could not be taken into consideration because of the fact that in their inculpatory extra judicial confessional statement both the accused have stated that they along with Golu, deceased took wine. Deceased was heavy poured. During course of postmortem no such event has been found and that rules out the disclosure made on behalf of the accused persons by way of inculpatory extra judicial confessional statement. Considering the statement of the witnesses, it happens to be a case of last seen and taking into account the time so disclosed under postmortem report, the occurrence is being duly connected with the presence of all these accused. Prayer for bail is rejected.

(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.) PN/- U T