Vinod Dhagar @ Vinod Dhangar @ Vinod Dhagad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2472 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-215 Year-2024 Thana- NAWADA MUFFASIL District- Nawada ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar @Rajesh Prasad S/O Late Bhagwan Singh R/O VillageChakdaulat, P.S- Warsliganj, District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sidhendra Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 19-04-2025 Heard Mr. Sidhendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is in judicial custody in connection with Mufassil P.S. Case No. 215 of 2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1),61(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 & 27 of the Arms Act lodged on 02.07.2024 by the informant, Rajesh Prasad.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant turned petitioner alleged in the FIR that his late younger brother's wife had come to his home after the registry and wanted to stay for a day. However, as his mother was ill, informing the lady about illness, requested her to proceed along with him. As they moved on the motorcycle, intercepted near 'Bhagat Singh Chowk' by 6-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2472 of 2025(4) dt.19-04-2025 2/3 7 persons on a four wheeler. As they started abusing him, he left the motorcycle and escaped from the place. Later, he heard the firing. As people started gathering, he found his brother's wife lying dead in a pool of blood. This led to the FIR.

4. Investigation took place in the matter and the niddle of suspicion moved towards the informant turned the petitioner, he was picked up and spilled the beans that it was he who executed the entire plan which led to his maternal uncle, Manoj Singh killing the lady.

5. It is to be noted that deceased's husband was also killed earlier.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that save and except the confessional statement of the petitioner, there is nothing on record to implicate him. In fact, he was taking the lady to his mother who was ill, as was intercepted by a four wheeler, had no option but to escape. In any case, the main role has been assigned to Manoj Singh.

7. Learned APP on the other hand submits that it is unfortunate that the informant executed the entire plan to kill the lady who was his late brother's wife. He submits that Manoj Singh also moved before this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 87719 of 2024 which came to be dismissed on 04.04.2025.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2472 of 2025(4) dt.19-04-2025 3/3

8. Let the order be kept on record.

9. Considering the submissions of the parties and the fact that the person who was to protect the lady and is the informant of the case actually was the person who had the main role in the unfortunate killing of the victim lady, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioner which is accordingly rejected.

10. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at an earliest.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T