Patna High CourtCR. MISC./82357/2024bail granted

Pramod Singh @ Kumod Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2025-02-07Mr. Justice Harish Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82357 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-243 Year-2019 Thana- LALGANJ District- Vaishali ====================================================== Pramod Singh @ Kumod Kumar Singh S/o- Kishori Prasad Singh Resident of Patedha Bujurg Patedha Jayram, Patedha Jairam, District- Vaishali Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Rana Neha Kumari, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satyendra Narain Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 07-02-2025 Heard Ms. Rana Neha Kumari, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Satyendra Narain Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. In compliance of the order of this Court, supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner disclosing the reason for causing delay in approaching this Court.

3. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Lalganj P.S. Case No. 243 of 2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364(A), 34/120B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The prosecution alleges that on 14.07.2019 the son of the informant namely, Aditya Raj aged about 9 years was sitting at his jewellery shop. However, later on when the

2/4 informant reached at the shop, he did not find his son. The informant came to know that his son has been kidnapped and taken away by one unknown lady.

5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner drawing the attention of this Court to the narrations made in the FIR contended that it is the admitted fact that the son of the informant was taken away by an unknown lady and there is no whisper with regard to the complicity of any other person. However, later on, son of the informant was recovered from the market; and on the confessional statement of accused persons, name of the petitioner has also surfaced. Barring the confessional statement, there is no material. Moreover, the lady who was later on apprehended, she has accorded the privilege of bail by this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 67430 of 2019 vide order dated 27.11.2019. Other co-accused person, whose name has also been surfaced in the confessional statement, has also been allowed bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 56850 of 2019 vide order dated 13.09.2019.

6. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that apart from delay in approaching this Court, the other accused persons have been allowed regular bail.

3/4

7. At this stage, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner suffers from serious renal ailment and dialysis is also required on regular basis. Moreover, for the first time, the petitioner came to know about the incident when the police came to the petitioner's house in the year 2024, in his absence for enquiring about his whereabouts. It is the police, who informed the petitioner that his name has been arrayed as accused person which compelled the petitioner to approach before this Court and the petitioner bears fair antecedent; is the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.

8. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that the entire case against the petitioner revolves around on the confessional statement; moreover, the petitioner bears fair antecedent and other accused persons have been allowed the privilege of bail; all the more he is facing acute renal ailment, let the petitioner abovenamed be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-V, Vaishali at Hajipur in

4/4 connection with Lalganj P.S. Case No. 243 of 2019, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. with the further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the petitioner.

(Harish Kumar, J) Anjani/- U T