Rahul Kumar @ Chhotu @ Rahul Raj v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1262 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2021 Thana- MOKAMAH District- Patna ====================================================== Rahul Kumar @ Chhotu @ Rahul Raj Son of Ram Naresh Prasad Singh Resident of Village- Shankarwa Tola, P.S.- Mokama, District- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Priyanka Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 12-01-2023 Heard Ld. counsel for the petitioner and Ld. APP for the State.
The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Mokama P.S. Case No. 186 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution story as emerges from the FIR is that on 15.07.2021 when informant's son, namely, Pankaj Prasad coming to his house near Aunta Halt, he was shot at by criminals, due to which his son died.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
2/4 case. He further submits that even in the FIR only suspicion has been raised against the accused including the petitioner and after investigation, nothing concrete has been found against the petitioner which can connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. He also submits that investigation in this case is complete and charge-sheet has already been submitted.
He further submits that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 19.07.2021.
It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has earlier been made accused in three other cases.
It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one.
However, Ld. APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for bail. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this application is allowed, directing the petitioner, abovenamed, to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in
3/4 the sum of Rs. 10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Ld. A.C.J.M. II, Barh, Patna in connection with Mokama P.S. Case No. 186 of 2021 on the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner will make himself available for interrogation by a police officer/court as and when required. (ii) The petitioner will undertake that investigation/trial will not hamper on account of his absence or non-cooperation. He must be available to the police or the court whenever his presence is required.
(iii) The petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
(iv) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that the petitioner has criminal antecedents other than the disclosed one, Ld. court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents despite
4/4 his knowledge of the same.
(v) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong, Ld. court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner is directed to remove all the defects, if any, pointed out by the office within a period of one month and the Registry is directed to issue the certified copy of this order only after removal of office objections.
(Jitendra Kumar, J) uttam/- U T