Shyam Narayan Singh @ Shyam Narain Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82933 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-316 Year-2024 Thana- MOHANIYA District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Shyam Narayan Singh @ Shyam Narain Singh Son of Radhe Shyam Singh @ Ghora Resident of village-Naraura, P.S.-Mohania, District-Kaimur at Bhabua ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajani Kant Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pushpa Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 04-02-2025 Heard Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Pushpa Sinha, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 364/120(B), 302 and 210 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the son of the informant, namely, Anil Kumar Goswami was missing from the night of 28.05.2024. The informant has stated in the FIR that the petitioner, Jyoti Kumari was on talking terms with the son of the informant. It has been suspected that she had kidnapped and killed the son of the informant. After some days, the dead body of the son of the informant was recovered. Accordingly the FIR was lodged.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82933 of 2024(3) dt.04-02-2025 2/3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that name of the petitioner has surfaced on the basis of the confessional statement of Jyoti Kumari and after arrest, this petitioner has also given his confessional statement and on the basis of his self-confession, dead body was recovered. It has further been submitted that from perusal of the photograph and arrest of this petitioner, it will transpire that the petitioner was arrested prior to the photograph whereas it has been submitted that dead body was recovered on his self-confession. This part of the confessional statement is falsified. Further it has been found that the mobile of the deceased was also recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Regarding this recovery, it is clear that learned counsel for the petitioner only the above argument that as he was arrested after the recovery as such, every thing is planned but the recovery of mobile cast a doubt on the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 30.05.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail stating that the mobile of the deceased was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. As such, the petitioner does not deserve bail. Considering the submissions put forward by the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82933 of 2024(3) dt.04-02-2025 3/3 parties and the materials available on the case diary, I am not inclined to extend him the privilege of bail which is accordingly rejected.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Jagdish/- U