Monu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71669 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2022 Thana- JAKKANPUR District- Patna ====================================================== MONU KUMAR S/o Naresh Sharma R/o- Postal Park, Road No. 03, Near Kali Mandir Tenant in the house of Srawnand Mishra, P.S.- Jakkanpur, District- Patna Permanent resident of Bairia, Prem Nagar, Road No. 01, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shilpi Keshri For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shantanu Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-04-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State.

In this case, the petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Jakkanpur P.S. Case No. 149 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. As per allegation, some unknown criminals committed murder of son of the informant by firing shot at him. The informant, on getting information, rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the dead-body of his son wrapped inside a white bag. The informant noticed that the miscreants killed his son by fire shot and they had also strangulated him by putting

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71669 of 2022(3) dt.21-04-2023 2/2 rope around his neck.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. The informant is not an eye witness. There is nothing against the petitioner except his confessional statement as well as confessional statement of coaccused Abhishek Kumar which has been recorded before the police.

On the other hand, the learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that the petitioner has confessed his guilt and furnished the vivid description of the entire occurrence, mentioned in paragraph No. 14 of the case diary. The petitioner has also criminal antecedent as mentioned in paragraph No. 3 of the bail petition.

Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that the investigation is still going on, I do not think it to be a fit case for bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Sudha/Sonali U T