Guddu Bhagat @ Guddu Yadav @ Raj ... vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 4173 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37199 of 2020
       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2020 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka
 ======================================================

Guddu Bhagat @ Guddu Yadav @ Raj Kumar, aged 24 years, Male, son of Pradeep Bhagat @ Pradeep Kumar, resident of village- Karsani, P.S.- Rajoun, District- Banka.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP For the Informant : Mr. Brij Nandan Prasad, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 19-08-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Ajay Mukherjee, learned counsel for the

petitioner; Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional Public

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

and Mr. Brij Nandan Prasad, learned counsel for the informant.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Amarpur PS Case No. 177 of 2020 dated 09.04.2020, instituted

under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he

along with co-accused Tulso Yadav had come to the house of the

informant and taken her husband for purchase of fish on Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37199 of 2020 dt.19-08-2021

01.04.2020, but he did not return to the house till the evening

and on search, he was not found and next day from the

newspaper she came to know that her husband had died due to

accident. It is further alleged that six months ago there was

dispute with the husband and the accused persons and, thus,

suspicion has been raised with regard to the involvement of the

accused, including the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

the allegation is falsified for the reason that if, six months prior

to the accident there was dispute between the accused and the

husband of the informant, there could not have been any

occasion for the petitioner to have come to the house of the

informant/deceased and for him to have accompanied the

accused to buy fish. It was submitted that during investigation

witnesses have stated that it was an accident and the petitioner

had no role in it.

6. On 12.07.2021, the Court had called for the up-to-

date legible photostat copy of the entire case diary along with

inquest and postmortem reports. Learned APP has received the

same.

7. On 12.08.2021, in view of submission of learned

APP that the inquest and postmortem reports disclose multiple Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37199 of 2020 dt.19-08-2021

injuries, both external and internal, on the deceased but there is

no mentioning or report available with regard to injuries

suffered by the petitioner, if at all, it is correct that he along with

the deceased had met with an accident where the motorcycle is

said to have fallen 20 feet below, learned counsel for the

petitioner had taken time to bring on record the details of the

treatment received by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that because the petitioner had got treatment from a

village quack, no records being available, he has not filed any

supplementary affidavit.

8. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that it

was a pre-planned murder and the petitioner has cleverly given

it the colour of an accident, which is false. It was submitted that

there are multiple injuries on the body of the deceased and the

motorcycle does not bear sign of any accident, the story cannot

be believed, more so, as it was the petitioner who had called the

deceased from the house and thereafter, he had died. It was

submitted that there is not even a scratch on the body of the

petitioner and most surprisingly, the body of the deceased bears

signs of brutal murder as many internal organs have been

crushed. Further, he contended that it is not possible that one

person would receive so much injures and the other person Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37199 of 2020 dt.19-08-2021

would not have even a scratch on his body. Moreover, it was

submitted that the petitioner is said to have regained

consciousness and had gone to get treatment, but he did not

bother to look for the deceased or arrange for his treatment

though he was the one, who had called him and was driving the

motorcycle on which the deceased was sitting behind, as has

been contended on his behalf, which clearly falsifies the defence

version.

9. 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 APP and

learned counsel for the informant. On an over all circumspection

of the attending circumstances, the Court finds that the

petitioner has not been able to show his bona fide and there is

no explanation as to why there was no injury suffered by him,

whereas, the deceased has suffered multiple internal injuries on

many vital organs and further, that though he was the person,

who had called the deceased from the house but he did not take

any steps for treatment of the deceased if the story of accident is

correct, and soon thereafter the victim had died.

10. For reasons aforesaid, the Court is not inclined to

grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37199 of 2020 dt.19-08-2021

11. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

12. Interim protection granted to the petitioner under

order dated 12.07.2021 stands vacated.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

J. Alam/-

AFR/NAFR U T