Dulal Kumar Singh @ Dulal Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82773 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2024 Thana- KADWA District- Katihar ====================================================== Dulal Kumar Singh @ Dulal Singh S/o- Shaktinath Singh Resident of Pahalagargh PS- Kadwa District- Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Praveen Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL

ORDER

04-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Narsingh Tanti, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 302, 364, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the son of the informant namely, Krishna Kumar Singh was playing near his house. He did not return till night. When the informant started searching him, he came to know that Md. Sakir has taken away his son on a bike. After this, he went to the house of Md. Sakir where he was being threatened. The informant believes that his son has been kidnapped by Md. Sakir.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has falsely been implicated in this case. He has got no criminal antecedent. During course of investigation, Md. Sakir has given

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82773 of 2024(4) dt.04-03-2025 2/2 his confessional statement and in his confessional statement, he has named this petitioner. This petitioner has also given his confessional statement and on the basis of his confessional statement, the dead body was recovered. The report from the trial court has been called, which goes to show that altogether four witnesses have been examined out of 11 till today. It is further submitted that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 09.05.2024.

5. Learned APP appearing for the state has opposed the prayer of regular bail.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the recovery of deceased has been made at the instance of this petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, accordingly the present bail application stands rejected.

7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Sudhanshu/- U T