Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Pandit vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1193 Patna

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37561 of 2020
         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2020 Thana- JAMUI District- Jamui
 ======================================================

Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Pandit (Male) aged about 35 years, son of Yogendra Pandit, resident of village- Pratappur, P.S. and District- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Niranjan Parihar, Advocate
 For the State            :        Mr. Md. Arif, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 02-03-2021

Heard Mr. Niranjan Parihar, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Md. Arif, learned Additional Public

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

2. The petitioner is in custody in connection with

Jamui PS Case No.187 of 2020 dated 10.04.2020, instituted

under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The allegation against the petitioner, though not

named in the FIR, is of killing the son-in-law of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

only on suspicion and the so-called confessional statement, he

has been made accused, but without any legal evidence. It was

submitted that there is no eye witness and further, that on the

seizure list of the Gatta, which is alleged to be the weapon for Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37561 of 2020 dt.02-03-2021

murder, the witnesses have not stated that recovery was in their

presence. It was submitted that the petitioner is in custody since

12.04.2020.

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

there is sufficient evidence against the petitioner as it has come

that he was having affair with the wife of the deceased i.e., the

youngest daughter of the informant and had planned to get

married after killing the deceased. It was submitted that on his

confession the weapon i.e., Gatta, which was used for cutting

the neck of the deceased, has been recovered with blood stain. It

was submitted that on the seizure list witnesses have signed and

there is no requirement that they should write what was

recovered as that has been mentioned in the first portion itself

and the witnesses have signed on the same.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

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

Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

J. Alam/-

AFR/NAFR U T