Saurav Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3553 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2024 Thana- PIPRIYA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Saurav Kumar S/o- Ganesh Yadav Village- Dih Pipariya, P. S. - Pipariya, District- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 05-02-2025 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail, who is in custody in connection with Pipariya P.S. Case No. 29 of 2024, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Based upon the prosecution report, the informant alleges that on 22.03.2024 at about 11:30 AM, his neighbour Manila Devi took away his son, aged about 9 years and at about 02:00 PM, when the informant searched about his son, he came to know that his son is lying in unconscious condition in a field. The informant rushed to the place of occurrence and found his son was dead. Suspicion has been raised against eight named accused persons of causing death of the son of the informant.
2/4
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that FIR has been instituted against eight named accused persons, however, there is no whisper about the complicity of the petitioner in the crime. During the course of investigation, it has transpired that it is one Vikram Kumar, who was accompanied the son of the informant and later on, the dead body of the deceased was found. Co-accused Vikram Kumar has confessed before the police regarding the involvement of two persons, namely, Sachin Kumar and Sevak Kumar. On the aforenoted disclosure made by co-accused Vikram Kumar, both the accused persons were apprehended and it is co-accused Sevak Kumar, who confessed the name of the petitioner. Save and except the confessional statement, there is no material suggesting the complicity of the petitioner in the crime. The death has caused on account of strangulation and the deceased boy was lastly seen with co-accused Vikram Kumar. Moreover, the petitioner is a boy of tender age, aged about 19 years, and now he has been incarcerated since 18.10.2024.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the bail application. However, he fairly submits that the name of the petitioner has transpired only on confessional statement, but he bears one criminal antecedent.
3/4
6. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the fact that barring confessional statement, there is no material against the petitioner, coupled with the tender age and now the investigation of the crime is complete and the charge-sheet has been submitted, let the petitioner, named above, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate- 1st Class, Lakhisarai in connection with Pipariya P.S. Case No. 29 of 2024, subject to the condition that one of the bailors will be the close relatives of the petitioner with further conditions which are as follows:- (i) The petitioner will cooperate in conclusion of the trial.
(ii) He will remain present on each and every date of trial till disposal of the case.
(iii) He will not try to tamper with the evidence or intimidate the witnesses to delay the disposal of trial. (iv) In the event of default of two consecutive dates without any cogent reason, his bail bonds will liable to be cancelled.
(v) The court below shall verify the criminal
4/4 antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take immediate step for cancelling the bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds, in terms of the above-mentioned order, shall not be delayed for this purpose or in the name of verification.
(Harish Kumar, J) shivank/- U T