Vishwajeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80011 of 2023 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-569 Year-2023 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== VISHWAJEET KUMAR SON OF VIJAY SINGH R/O VILLAGECHIKNAUTA, P.S.- SUGAULI, DISTRICT- EAST CHAMPARAN ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sunil Kumar No.Iii For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Uday Pratap Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-08-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 516 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 448, 447, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that he came at the door of the informant and took the informant's son in a Barat Party and later on, he along with others killed the informant's son by gun-shot and threw away his body near Belwa Rai Road. It has been mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner and his associates had committed murder of the deceased.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80011 of 2023(4) dt.21-08-2024 2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He has further submitted that except suspicion, there is nothing against the petitioner. There is no eye witness of the occurrence and the motive for committing murder has been not mentioned in the FIR.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that it was the petitioner, who killed the deceased after the deceased accompanied the petitioner and thereafter was found missing. It is strange that the mobile phone of the petitioner was switched off when the father of deceased attempted to contact him. He has further submitted that the deceased was seen by the witnesses going with the petitioner in paragraph nos. 10 and 11 of the case diary, as such, it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the link of chain is completed by the statement of the witnesses recorded under Sections 10 and 11, who are the witnesses on last seen.
6. The deceased was last seen in company with the petitioner. His mobile set was switched off when the father of the deceased wanted to contact the petitioner.
7. Considering the above-mentioned facts and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80011 of 2023(4) dt.21-08-2024 3/3 circumstances as well as the gravity of the allegation, I do not think it to be a fit case for bail, which is hereby rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) Nirmal/- U T