Dashrath Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.72635 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-214 Year-2023 Thana- PIPRA District- Supaul ====================================================== Dashrath Kumar Son Of Rasik Lal Mandal R/O Village- Garhiya, Ward No.18, P.S.- Pipra, District- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjay Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Amitesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR PANWAR ORAL ORDER 08-02-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No.; 214 of 2023 instituted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. It is a case of double murder case. The informant alleged that her husband and one Sikendra Das were shot dead by the accused named in the FIR along with the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. During course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested on the basis of suspicion whose confessional statement had been recorded which has got no evidentiary value in the eye of law. The petitioner has got no

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.72635 of 2023(3) dt.08-02-2024 2/2 criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail petition and he is languishing in judicial custody since 12.7.2023.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail and submitted that the petitioner was apprehended and his confessional statement has been recorded vide para 110 of the case diary in which he confessed that he along with his associates shot dead the husband of the informant and one Sukendra Das. Thereafter, at the instance of the confessional statement of the petitioner, the pistol was recovered from his house which is said to be used in alleged occurrence and the seizure list vide para 113 of the case diary corroborates this fact. Moreover, the witnesses of the case have supported the prosecution case.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of allegation, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as possible.

(Sunil Kumar Panwar, J) lata/- U T