Pappu @ Ujjawal Kumar Singh @ ... vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 108 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31827 of 2020
        Arising out of PS. Case No.-567 Year-2019 Thana- MANER District- Patna
======================================================

Pappu @ Ujjawal Kumar Singh @ Ujjawal aged about 38 years, Male, S/o Niranjan Singh, Resident of Village - Dayal Chak, P.S. - Maner, District - Patna.

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

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P K Shahi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh No. 1, APP For the Informant : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 11-01-2021

Heard Mr. P K Shahi, learned senior counsel along

with Mr. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.

Aditya Narayan Singh No. 1, learned Additional Public Prosecutor

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

Gajendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with Maner

PS Case No. 567 of 2019 dated 17.11.2019, instituted under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms

Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

informant has categorically stated that she was informed by one

Ravindra Singh about the killing of her husband by the petitioner Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31827 of 2020 dt.11-01-2021

and Ravindra Singh himself claimed that he was informed by one

of the accused Kamlesh Singh. However, learned counsel

submitted that Kamlesh Singh, co-accused has stated that he asked

one Bijli Singh to inform the wife of the deceased, i.e., the

informant. It was further submitted that the co-accused Bipin

Singh has stated that the deceased was killed by the petitioner and

that he was informed by Ravindra Singh about the incident.

Learned counsel submitted that a third person namely Sushil

Kumar has given statement to the police after two months of the

occurrence in which he claims that he is first cousin of the

informant and has categorically stated that he went along with the

deceased to the place of occurrence and there was some alteration

with a shop owner and the petitioner had fired and after hearing

the noise of gunfire he saw the petitioner running away towards

the village and the deceased lying on the road. Learned counsel

submitted that when Sushil Kumar being the first cousin of the

informant had accompanied the deceased and in his presence, the

was killed, there is no explanation and as to why he had not

informed the family members, including the informant, of the

incident and also as to why after two months he got his statement

recorded by the police and further, that in the so-called

confessional statement of Kamlesh Singh and Bipin Singh there is Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31827 of 2020 dt.11-01-2021

not even whisper with regard to Sushil Kumar being present at the

place of occurrence. Learned counsel submitted that only on the

basis of suspicion the petitioner has been implicated due to local

rivalry and is in custody since 20.01.2020.

4. Learned APP, from the case diary, and learned counsel

for the informant, submitted that all the witnesses have stated that

it was the petitioner who had killed the deceased husband of the

informant by firing on him. However, on query of the Court as to

how the variations/discrepancies in the statement of two accused

and another witness can be reconciled, especially with regard to

Sushil Kumar being the first cousin of the informant who has

stated that he accompanied the deceased to the place of occurrence

and not informing anybody about the occurrence and suddenly

after two months recording his statement, and further, about there

being no mentioning of Sushil Kumar in the statement of co-

accused Kamlesh Singh or Bipin Singh, learned counsel could not

offer any explanation.

5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

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

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

25,000/- (twenty five thousand) each with two sureties of the like

amount each to the satisfaction of the learned 3 rd Additional Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31827 of 2020 dt.11-01-2021

Sessions Judge, Danapur, Patna in Maner PS Case No. 567 of

2019, subject to the conditions (i) that one of the bailors shall be a

close relative of the petitioner, (ii) that the petitioner and the

bailors shall execute bond with regard to good behaviour of the

petitioner, and (iii) that the petitioner shall also give an

undertaking to the Court that he shall not indulge in any

illegal/criminal activity, act in violation of any law/statutory

provisions, tamper with the evidence or influence the witnesses.

Any violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the

undertaking shall lead to cancellation of his bail bonds. The

petitioner shall cooperate in the case and be present before the

Court on each and every date. Failure to cooperate or being absent

on two consecutive dates, without sufficient cause, shall also lead

to cancellation of their bail bonds.

6. The application stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Vikash/-

AFR/NAFR U T