Juganu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar @ Juganu vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1604 Patna

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
             CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31944 of 2020
         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2020 Thana- DIGHA District- Patna
======================================================

Juganu Kumar @ Sonu Kumar @ Juganu, aged about 20 years, Gender-M, S/o - Sri Yogendra Singh, R/v- XTTI, Digha, P.S.- Digha, District- Patna.

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

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

For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State            :       Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 22-03-2021

Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. Nagendra Prasad, learned Additional Public

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

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Digha PS Case No. 82 of 2020 dated 13.02.2020 corresponding

to G.R. No. 1378 of 2020, instituted under Sections 302/34 of

the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

3. The allegation against the petitioner and others is of

being party to the murder of the son of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he

has been falsely implicated only on the basis of the so-called

confessional statement of co-accused Santosh Kumar that too

before the police. It was submitted that even as per the said Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31944 of 2020 dt.22-03-2021

confessional statement, the petitioner is said to have come to the

house of Santosh Kumar with one Parmeshwar Kumar who had

expressed his grudge that the deceased was party to the killing

of the father of Parmeshwar Kumar and, thus, a plan was

chalked out to kill the deceased. Further, it has been stated that

the petitioner took part in the recce with regard to the movement

of the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that the same is

unbelievable for the reason that the daughter of the deceased,

whom the deceased had dropped at Hartman School, had

witnessed the deceased talking to accused Santosh Kumar and

Santosh Kumar had sat behind him and went away on the

motorcycle. Thus, it was submitted that the co-accused Santosh

Kumar was already at the school and had taken the deceased

sitting behind him on the motorcycle of the deceased on some

pretext. Learned counsel submitted that Santosh Kumar has

been identified in the CCTV but the petitioner has not been

identified and further that there is no occasion for the petitioner

to be involved as he had no grudge against the deceased and,

thus, cannot be expected to commit such a major crime of

murder without there being any real motive. Learned counsel

submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP, from the case diary, submitted that co- Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31944 of 2020 dt.22-03-2021

accused Santosh Kumar has taken the name of the petitioner as

being the person who was doing the recce with regard to the

movement of the deceased. However, he did not controvert that

no other role has come against the petitioner and also that the

daughter of the deceased had taken the name only of Santosh

Kumar sitting behind the deceased on his motorcycle and going

away. It was submitted co-accused Parmeshwar Kumar has been

declined privilege of anticipatory bail by order dated 03.02.2021

in Cr. Misc. No. 32234 of 2020.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

Parmeshwar Kumar was the main person who was having

motive as he had alleged that the deceased was party to the

killing of his father and in such background, there is a direct

link between the murder with Parmeshwar Kumar but as far as

the petitioner is concerned, no motive has come even in the

entire investigation and no witness has stated either with regard

to seeing the petitioner or the petitioner having connection in the

crime and only on the sole confessional statement of co-accused

Santosh Kumar, he has been implicated.

7. 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31944 of 2020 dt.22-03-2021

six weeks from today, the petitioner be released on bail upon

furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand)

with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

the learned S.D.J.M., Patna in Digha PS Case No. 82 of 2020,

G.R. No. 1378 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

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 his

bail bonds.

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

violation of the foregoing conditions of bail by the petitioner, to

the notice of the Court concerned, which shall take immediate Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31944 of 2020 dt.22-03-2021

action on the same after giving opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner.

9. The application stands disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

Anjani/-

AFR/NAFR U T