Ripusudan Dubey @ Ripusudan ... vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 3786 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 7800 of 2021
           Arising Out of PS. Case No.-420 Year-2020 Thana- CHOUTARWA District- West
                                            Champaran
      ======================================================

1. Ripusudan Dubey @ Ripusudan Dwivedi, aged about 30 years, Male.

2. Madhurendra Dubey, aged about 44 years, Male.

3. Sudarshan Dubey, aged about 43 years, Male.

All sons of Sharda Dubey.

4. Ketan Dubey @ Rajnish Kumar Dubey, aged about 22 years, Male, Son of Madhurendra Dubey.

All Resident of Village- Bariarwa, PS- Chautarwa, District- West Champaran.

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

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

      For the Petitioner/s    :       Mr. Bashishth Narayan Mishra, Advocate
      For the State           :       Mr. Md. Arif, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 29-07-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. The case has been taken up out of turn on the basis of

motion slip filed by learned counsel for the petitioners on

20.07.2021, which was allowed.

3. Heard Mr. Bashishth Narayan Mishra, learned

counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Md. Arif, learned Additional

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

State.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7800 of 2021 dt.29-07-2021

4. The petition on behalf of petitioners no. 3 and 4,

namely, Sudarshan Dubey and Ketan Dubey @ Rajnish Kumar

Dubey, have already been withdrawn earlier and is restricted to

petitioners no. 1 and 2, namely, Ripusudan Dubey @ Ripusudan

Dwivedi and Madhurendra Dubey.

5. The petitioners no. 1 and 2 apprehend arrest in

connection with Chautarwa PS Case No. 420 of 2020 dated

02.10.2020, instituted under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the Indian

Penal Code.

6. The allegation against the petitioners no. 1 and 2 is

that they had killed the brother of the informant.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

from the first part of the FIR, it appears that the informant was

witness to the crime in which the petitioners no. 1 and 2 have also

been named, but from the later part, it is clear that he was not an

eye witness as it is stated that he along with other family members

had tried to locate the deceased who had not returned home and

only next morning, the body was recovered, which clearly proves

that he was not an eye witness to the incident. Learned counsel

submitted that there is long history of enmity/litigation between

the parties as they have filed cases against each other. It was

submitted that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 are accused in two cases Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7800 of 2021 dt.29-07-2021

filed by the informant side and one other case but not under grave

sections. It was submitted that the deceased was a hardened

criminal and was accused in several murder cases and was living

in the village of his sister-in-law and not in his original village and

three brothers of the deceased had been killed because of their

criminal history, either in police encounter or by others and the

deceased himself was accused in Ramnagar PS Case No. 101 of

1986, which was instituted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code, in which trial was pending. Learned counsel submitted that

there is no eye witness or independent witness to support the

prosecution story that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 had killed the

deceased. It was submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is the Panch of

Gram Kuchery of Salha Bariarwa, PS Chautarwa, West

Champaran and had conducted several panchayati against the

informant and the informant's brother-in-law namely, Yadov Lal

Yadav due to which they have been implicated being members of

the same family. It was submitted that much prior to the present

case, the petitioner no. 1 had instituted Chautarwa PS Case No.

285 of 2018 on 13.12.2018, against the informant and his brother-

in-law as also nephew of the informant, alleging snatching of Rs.

50,000/- at gun point and also mercilessly assaulting him. Further,

it was submitted that the petitioner no. 1 is also a witness in Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7800 of 2021 dt.29-07-2021

Complaint Case No. 656 C of 2017, in which the informant is an

accused and the petitioner no. 1 had given evidence against him. It

was submitted that there is no eye witness and only on suspicion,

they have been made accused.

8. Learned APP submitted that the brother of the

deceased, who is the informant has named the petitioners as one of

the perpetrators of the crime. However, it was not controverted

that in the FIR itself, it has been stated that there is litigation

between the sides.

9. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

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

event of arrest or surrender before the Court below within six

weeks from today, the petitioner no. 1, namely, Ripusudan Dubey

@ Ripusudan Dwivedi and petitioner no. 2, namely, Madhurendra

Dubey 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 ACJM, 1st Bagaha,

District-West Champaran in Chautarwa PS Case No. 420 of 2020,

subject to the conditions laid down in Section 438(2) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further, and further, (i) that one

of the bailors shall be a close relative of the petitioners no. 1 and

2, (ii) that the petitioners no. 1 and 2 and the bailors shall execute Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7800 of 2021 dt.29-07-2021

bond and give undertaking with regard to good behaviour of the

petitioners no. 1 and 2 and (iii) that the petitioners no. 1 and 2

shall co-operate with the police/prosecution and the Court. Any

violation of the terms and conditions of the bonds or the

undertaking or failure to co-operate shall lead to cancellation of

their bail bonds.

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

violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioners no.

1 and 2, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take

immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing

to the petitioners no. 1 and 2.

11. The petition stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T