Md. Samim vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3884 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14209 of 2021
          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2020 Thana- SINGHIYA District- Samastipur
     ======================================================

1. Md. Samim, aged about 38 years (Male), Son of Md. Mohuddin @ Usman

2. Md. Safik @ Md. Rafik, aged about 35 years (Male), son of Md. Harun

Both resident of Village- Lilhaul (Lulhaul), P.S.- Singhia, District- Samastipur.

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

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

     For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
     For the State            :       Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 02-08-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for

the petitioners and Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, learned Additional

Public Prosecutor (hereinafter referred to as the 'APP') for the

State.

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Singhiya PS Case No. 48 of 2020 dated 09.04.2020, instituted

under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioners, along with

others, is of killing the son of the informant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14209 of 2021 dt.02-08-2021

they have been falsely implicated only because they are co-

villagers and on good terms with Md. Azad, the brother of the

informant, who is also an accused. It was submitted that the

allegation is based on the statement of one Md. Bijli, that the

accused, including the petitioners, were the persons who had

assaulted him and the deceased, who was son of the informant,

and whose body was later recovered near the bank of badaki

gachchi pokhar. It was submitted that even the statement of Md.

Bijli is self contradictory because he has stated that he and the

deceased had consumed liquor and he was in an inebriated state

and the deceased had told to him that he would come shortly

and had gone, and then it is stated that a few persons had come

and assaulted him and had asked for the deceased and then Md.

Bijli had stated that he had managed to run away from there, but

due to intoxication he had fallen on the way and woke up at 3:00

o'clock at night and had returned home. Further, it was

submitted that the said Md. Bijli has stated that when the father

of the deceased had come looking for his son, as both of them

had left together, he had stated about the accused, including the

petitioners, that they had assaulted him and then it is suspected

that they might also have assaulted the deceased and based upon

his information, the body was recovered, as Md. Bijli had Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14209 of 2021 dt.02-08-2021

indicated having seen the deceased going towards that direction.

Learned counsel submitted that Md. Azad, who is the full

brother of the informant, has also been made an accused and it

appears that there is some family dispute and most importantly,

the petitioners have no role in the incident and no eye witness

has seen them, either committing the offence or with the

deceased on the fateful day. It was submitted that the petitioners

have no concern with the incident and also no motive to commit

such a crime. Learned counsel further submitted that the

petitioners have no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel drew

the attention of the Court to the fact that in the FIR itself it has

been stated that when the informant went to the house of Md.

Bijli, he was in an unconscious state and, thus, it is very clear

that he could not have narrated the sequence of events to them

as he was unconscious and this itself demolishes the prosecution

case.

6. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that the

witnesses have supported the prosecution story. However, it was

not controverted that there is no eye witness and further that as

per the statement of Md. Bijli himself, initially he had stated that

2-3 unknown persons had assaulted him but later, to the

informant, he had stated that the accused, including the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14209 of 2021 dt.02-08-2021

petitioners, had assaulted him and thus, they were one of the

persons who might have also assaulted the deceased.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the

Court finds substance in the submissions of learned counsel for

the petitioners. There being serious doubts with regard to

capacity of Md. Bijli to say what has been attributed to him in

the FIR, coupled with his statement to the police that 2-3

unknown persons had assaulted him but later on in the morning

when the informant had come he had stated that he was

assaulted by the accused, including the petitioners, expressing

that they might have assaulted the deceased also, does give

strong indication that the statement of Md. Bijli may not be very

reliable. Furthermore, there being no eye witness or no witness

who has stated that the petitioners were seen with the deceased

and also there being no direct motive attributed to them, the

Court is inclined to allow the prayer for pre-arrest bail to the

petitioners.

8. Accordingly, in the event of arrest or surrender

before the Court below within six weeks from today, the

petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.

25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14209 of 2021 dt.02-08-2021

like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Vth Additional

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rosera, Samastipur in Singhiya PS

Case No. 48 of 2020, subject to the conditions laid down in

Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and

further (i) that one of the bailors shall be a close relative of the

petitioners, (ii) that the petitioners and the bailors shall execute

bond and give undertaking with regard to good behaviour of the

petitioners, and (iii) that the petitioners shall cooperate with the

Court and the police/prosecution. Any violation of the terms and

conditions of the bonds or the undertaking or non-cooperation

shall lead to cancellation of their bail bonds.

9. It shall also be open for the prosecution to bring any

violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioners,

to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate

action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the

petitioners.

                     10.    The      petition     stands     disposed         of   in   the

           aforementioned terms.


                                             (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)


Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR
U
T