← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./103/2023bail granted

Neerav Kumar @ Bittu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2023-06-27Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.103 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2022 Thana- SASARAM MUFFSIL District- Rohtas ====================================================== NEERAV KUMAR @ BITTU SINGH Son of Jhunna Singh @ Arun Kumar Singh R/V- Jamrodh, P.S- Dinara, Dist- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Soni Srivastava, Advocate Mr. Saroj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Anita Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-06-2023 Heard Mr. Soni Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Saroj Kumar, Advocate and Mrs. Anita Kumari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 01.06.2022 in connection with Sasaram (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 191 of 2022, F.I.R. dated 22.04.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to prosecution case, in brief on the basis of fardbeyan of informant Mina Devi, the informant has performed marriage of her daughter Babali Kumari with Neerav Kumar Singh @ Bittu Singh four years ago. After some time of her marriage the petitioner and his family members used to harass

2/4 mentally and physically to bring money by selling the land, for this demand they quarrel with her. On 18.04.2022 on the instigation of family members the petitioner poured kerosene oil upon the deceased and set it on fire due to burn injury she died. The informant has full confident that his son-in-law with his family killed the daughter of the informant by set fire. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case merely on the basis that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R.

He further submits that in fact the deceased has died during course of preparing food caught fire in the Sari of the deceased due to which she was burnt and the informant was present at the time of occurrence and he along with other person have carried the deceased to hospital. He further submits that it has come during investigation in paragraph no.

3/4 present occurrence. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in judicial custody since 01.06.2022. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Sasaram (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 191 of 2022, subject to the following conditions:-

1. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

2. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

4/4

3. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) mdrashid/- U T