Chunnu Raut v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65267 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2024 Thana- PURNAHYA District- Sheohar ====================================================== Chunnu Raut Son of Late Deodhari Raut Village-Parsaunigop, P.S-Purnahiya, District-Sheohar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sunil Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 17-01-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and perused the case diary.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Purnahiya P.S. Case No. 60 of 2024, instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 140(3), 96, 3(5), 103(1) and 238 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, the daughter of the informant aged about 15 years went missing and the informant is apprehending that one 'Dheeraj Kumar' is behind the disappearance of her daughter. Later on, dead body of her daughter was recovered from a pond situated in the village.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. No incriminating material has been recovered from

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65267 of 2024(6) dt.17-01-2025 2/3 the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. Name of the petitioner has transpired in this case on the basis of confessional statement made by co-accused person and the same has got no evidentiary value. It is next submitted that no T.I. parade has been conducted in this case. The petitioner is in custody since 21.07.2024 and has got no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. It is also submitted that co-accused, namely, Sripati Devi is the conspirator of the occurrence and in connivance with the petitioner and coaccused, namely, Satyendra Sah, they have committed murder of the daughter of the informant (co-accused herein), which fact is corroborated by the confessional statement of sister of the deceased mentioned at paragraph no. 52 of the case diary and the same fact is further corroborated with the confessional statement of the informant herself. It is next submitted that motorcycle used in disposing the dead body of the deceased has been recovered, which fact finds mention at paragraph no. 55 of the case diary. Cause of death stated in postmortem report is strangulation of neck. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65267 of 2024(6) dt.17-01-2025 3/3

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial expeditiously.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T