Chhotu Sah @ Amit Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 2030 Patna

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32029 of 2020
   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-337 Year-2018 Thana- CHIRAIYA District- East Champaran
  ======================================================

Chhotu Sah @ Amit Kumar, aged about 30 years M, Son of Nagendra Sah, resident of Village- Arariya, P.S.- Kundwachainpur, District - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

  For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Advocate
  For the State           :        Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, APP

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-05-2021

The matter has been heard via video conferencing.

2. Heard Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Mr. Jai Narain Thakur, learned Additional

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

State.

3. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with

Chiraiya PS Case No. 337 of 2018 dated 06.09.2018, instituted

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

4. The allegation against the petitioner and four others

is of having taken the son of the informant on the pretext of

having tea, from the Court premises where the petitioner and

others were seeking bail on the basis of a compromise between

the informant and the petitioner's side, at 1.00 PM and Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32029 of 2020 dt.18-05-2021

thereafter, he did not return and later on, in the evening, the

dead body of the son of the informant was recovered from near

the canal and, accordingly, it is alleged that the petitioner and

the co-accused had killed the son of the informant.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that

there was compromise between the parties and on the said date,

bail application was moved at 2.30 PM and allowed and the bail

bonds were accepted at 4.30 PM and surrender slip was given at

5.00 PM and, thus, taking away of son of the informant at 1.00

PM from the Court premises cannot be believed. It was further

submitted that as the parties had compromised, there was no

occasion for the petitioner to commit the murder of the

deceased. It was submitted that the petitioner has been falsely

implicated.

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

the petitioner and other co-accused have to explain the

circumstances as there is direct allegation that at 1.00 PM, they

had taken the deceased, son of the informant, to have tea and

thereafter he did not return. It was submitted that in the FIR, it is

not alleged that the petitioner also did not return after going

with the son of the informant and, thus, the son of the informant

having gone with the petitioner at 1.00 PM and the petitioner Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32029 of 2020 dt.18-05-2021

surrendering before the Court at 2.30 PM does not falsify the

prosecution case as one and half hours is a good time and most

importantly, the son of the petitioner could have been handed

over to some other persons by the petitioner and the co-accused,

and it is for the petitioner to explain as to what happened to him

since he had taken the son of the informant with him at 1.00 PM

from the Court premises. Further, it was submitted that there is

no occasion for the informant to falsely implicate the petitioner

and other co-accused if, at all, they were innocent, especially, in

view of the compromise, since the dispute had been settled

between the parties and, thus, there was no occasion for any

false implication and also that the informant would not protect

the real culprit by specifically accusing the petitioner and other

co-accused and not pointing any finger to any other person and

even unknown persons. It was submitted that witnesses have

also supported the fact that the son of the informant was taken

by the petitioner and other co-accused from the Court premises.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is also accused in

Ghorasahan PS Case No. 349 of 2018 instituted under Sections

341, 323, 325, 457, 380/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned

counsel submitted that it has also come that the petitioner had

absconded in the matter and only when processes were issued Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32029 of 2020 dt.18-05-2021

for his appearance, in February, 2020, he has moved seeking

anticipatory bail. It was submitted that the petitioner cannot be

said to be unaware of the present case as the parties were in

close proximity, especially after the compromise and the said

incident is of the same day when the petitioner had obtained bail

on the basis of such compromise from the Court below.

7. Having considered the facts and circumstances of

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

Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

9. Interim protection given to the petitioner by order

dated 06.04.2021 stands vacated.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

J. Alam/-

AFR/NAFR U T