Raman Singh vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1888 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 26308 of 2020
       Arising Out of PS Case No.-110 Year-2019 Thana- JALALPUR District- Saran
======================================================

Raman Singh, Male, age near about 30 years, Son of Sri Satyendra Singh, Resident of Village- Belkunda, PS- Jalalpur and the District- Saran.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. SSP Yadav, Advocate
For the State            :        Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 07-04-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. S S P Yadav, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the State.

3. The petitioner is in custody in connection with

Jalalpur PS Case No. 110 of 2019 dated 29.06.2019, instituted

under Sections 363 and 365/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. This is the second attempt for bail by the petitioner as

earlier such prayer was rejected by order dated 18.12.2019 passed

in Cr. Misc. No. 56145 of 2019.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is

in custody since 07.07.2019 and that he has been falsely Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26308 of 2020 dt.07-04-2021

implicated as there is no material to connect him to the crime. It

was submitted that only on doubt he has been made accused.

Learned counsel raised the issue of the investigation in which the

CCTV installed in the house of the petitioner is said to have

shown that the deceased had entered the house of the petitioner

but was not seen coming out and contended that investigation has

not disclosed that whether the CCTV camera was movable or

fixed. He submitted that this is an issue which is required to be

considered since a fixed CCTV would cover the place at all times

whereas a movable camera would not cover any particular place

for the entire period and, thus, there are chances that it would miss

persons coming out and going into the house if it is not fixed in

the direction of the entry/exit point. Learned counsel submitted

that similarly situated co-accused namely Dharamnath Sharma @

Dharmnath Sharma has been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench

on 05.03.2020 in Cr. Misc. No. 70025 of 2019; Sudhir Kumar

Thakur on 27.11.2019 in Cr. Misc. No. 77269 of 2019 and Rajesh

Thakur on 20.01.2020 in Cr. Misc. No. 1088 of 2020. It was

submitted that the petitioner is a young man and only charge has

been framed till now.

6. Learned APP submitted that the deceased going into

the house of the petitioner along with others for a meeting and the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26308 of 2020 dt.07-04-2021

other persons coming out and the deceased not coming out itself is

strong indication of the complicity of the petitioner in the crime.

Further, it was submitted that the technical issue of the CCTV

being fixed or movable is not required to be gone into at this stage

for the simple reason that persons had come to the house of the

petitioner for a meeting and, thus, when that place is covered in

the CCTV footage and persons have also seen coming out, there is

no reason why only the deceased would not come out of the house

of the petitioner. Further, it was submitted that co-accused Sudhir

Thakur has recorded his confessional statement in which he has

said that he was called by the driver of the petitioner and when he

went to the spot, he had seen the petitioner and a body being

unloaded from his Bolero vehicle. It was submitted as of now the

materials against the petitioner are overwhelming. It was further

submitted that the persons who have been granted bail were the

persons who were seen coming out of the house of the petitioner

and, thus, their case stands on a different footing as the deceased

was not seen coming out from the house of the petitioner and

therefore the petitioner cannot claim parity with regard to such co-

accused who have been granted bail.

7. Having considered the matter, the Court does not find

any fresh ground to consider the prayer bail of the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26308 of 2020 dt.07-04-2021

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

9. However, since charge has been framed, the Court

below is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the

earliest, preferably within nine months from the date of receipt of

a copy of this order.

10. The Superintendent of Police, Saran is directed to

ensure that witnesses are produced before the Court on the dates

so fixed in the matter.

11. Registry shall communicate the order to the

Superintendent of Police, Saran also, forthwith.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T