Patna High CourtCR. MISC./88133/2024bail granted

Paras Mani Dubey @ Kranti Dubey @ Paras Dubey @ Paras Mani v. The State Of Bihar

2025-01-08Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88133 of 2024 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-343 Year-2024 Thana- SULTANGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Paras Mani Dubey @ Kranti Dubey @ Paras Dubey @ Paras Mani S/o Rakesh Dubey Resident of Village-Mahendru Ranighat, P.O and P.SSultanganj, Patna City, District-Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Archana Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-01-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of BNS read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges that on 18.08.2024 her husband was murdered at about 09:25 AM and she can identify the accused persons. It is submitted that her husband was in trouble for quite a some time and when informant asked him that as to why he feels perturbed, on which he had disclosed that named accused persons were demanding extortion of Rs. 10 Lakhs since he was a contractor of Building Construction Department, Government of Bihar, further it is alleged that this petitioner along with Babul used to give information to the accused persons about her husband.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88133 of 2024(2) dt.08-01-2025 2/3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that petitioner is not alleged to have participated in the occurrence but then is alleged to have provided information to the accused persons which led to the killing for not giving extortion.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that husband of the informant was killed and the informant claims that she can identify the accused persons. It is fairly submitted that though petitioner is not alleged to have participated in the occurrence, but then it is alleged that it was at the insistence of the petitioner that information was being provided to the accused persons which led to the occurrence. The learned APP further submits that the investigation is in its nascent stages and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, he may abscond, on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88133 of 2024(2) dt.08-01-2025 3/3 anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Sultanganj P.S. Case No. 343 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C.

7. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his father Rakesh Dubey.

8. However, it is made clear that in the event if the Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the learned Trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioner despite giving assurance to this Court is not co-operating in the investigation, in that event the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to forthwith cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

9. It is further made clear that if charge sheet is submitted connecting the petitioner with the offence, in that event the present anticipatory bail order shall lose its effect. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T