Hakimudin vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2530 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34666 of 2020
        Arising Out of PS Case No.-73 Year-2020 Thana- Kochadhaman District- Kishanganj
     ======================================================

1. Hakimudin, Male, aged about 32 years, Son of Aiyub.

2. Quaimuddin, Male, aged about 42 years, Son of Aiyub.

3. Abbas, Male, aged about 45 years, Son of Dil Mohammad.

4. Khalique, Male, aged about 40 years, Son of Dil Mohammad.

5. Chasmuddin @ Kasmuddin, Male, aged about 38 years, Son of Late Niyamat Ali.

All resident of Village-Bodi Baitta, PS-Thakurganj, District-Kishanganj.

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

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP For the Informant : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22-06-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, learned counsel for

the petitioners; Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned Additional

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

State and Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, learned counsel for the

informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34666 of 2020 dt.22-06-2021

3. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with

Thakurganj PS Case No. 73 of 2020 dated 15.06.2020, instituted

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

4. On 03.05.2021, the application on behalf of

petitioners no. 2 and 3, namely, Quaimuddin and Abbas

respectively was disposed off as withdrawn and stands restricted

to petitioners no. 1, 4 and 5, namely, Hakimuddin, Khalique and

Chasmuddin @ Kasmuddin.

5. The allegation against the petitioners no. 1, 4 and 5 is

of killing the son of the informant.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

only on suspicion, they have been made accused as it is alleged

that they were seen running away from the place of occurrence. It

was submitted that there is no witness to the crime, more so, about

the involvement of the petitioners. It was submitted that the false

implication is due to past land dispute between the parties in

connection with which ten days prior to the incident, scuffle had

taken place between them and both the sides had lodged case

against each other. It was submitted that during investigation,

witnesses have stated that the deceased was of dull mind and had

also earlier tried to commit suicide and, thus, it can well be a case

of suicide. In support of such contention, it was submitted that the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34666 of 2020 dt.22-06-2021

postmortem report also does not disclose any injury on the body

of the deceased. It was further contended that independent

witnesses have clearly stated that the deceased was of dull mind

and that he had taken the extreme step because of the informant

not taking him along when he had gone out of the village, due to

which the deceased had committed suicide. Further, it was

contended that even the informant himself has only raised

suspicion that because there was past dispute between the parties,

the petitioners may have killed his son, without there being any

material in support thereof.

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

informant has raised the suspicion about the involvement of the

petitioners in the death of his son. However, it was not

controverted that independent witnesses have stated that the

deceased was of dull mind and that he had taken the extreme step

because of not being taken along by the informant. It was also not

controverted that the postmortem report does not disclose any

external injury on the body except for ligature mark on the neck

which indicates hanging and death due to asphyxia.

8. Learned counsel for the informant submitted that

there was past dispute between the parties and the informant had

seen the petitioners running away from the place where the son of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34666 of 2020 dt.22-06-2021

the informant was found hanging. However, he also could not

controvert the statement of the independent witnesses and the

finding in the postmortem report.

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, petitioner no. 1 namely, Hakimudin; petitioner

no. 4 namely, Khalique and petitioner no. 5 namely, Chasmuddin

@ Kasmuddin, 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 Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Kishanganj in Thakurganj PS Case No. 73 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 said petitioners and (ii) that the said

petitioners shall co-operate with the police/prosecution and the

Court. 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 said

petitioners, to the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34666 of 2020 dt.22-06-2021

immediate action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing

to the concerned petitioners.

11. The application stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar

AFR/NAFR U T